Glantz and Kursk

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Glantz and Kursk

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Glantz and Kursk

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 2:23:43 PM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

Since Glantz is discussed a lot around here I was wondering what he has written on the Battle of Kursk?

For a long time it was considered a complete Soviet victory. From my understanding it is now looked at not so clear cut. Model in the north of the salient was stopped cold, but in the south Manstein had some success. The great tanks battle around Perestroika was actually a partial German victory. The support given was that the Soviet suffered a lot of tank losses while the German suffered few. Manstein wanted to commit his reserves, but Hitler baulked and ended the whole advance. The units that had supposedly lost so many tanks remained combat effective for a long time after the battle of Kursk indicating that they hadn't suffered the losses that the Soviets said they had.

In the end the Battle of Kursk caused losses that the Reich couldn't afford speeding up the end of the war.

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm

Prochorovka (also spelled Prokhorovka) is the proper name. I stand corrected. I had not properly checked the spelling before posting.

< Message edited by RCH -- 5/12/2012 4:23:42 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 3:08:09 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH
Since Glantz is discussed a lot around here I was wondering what he has written on the Battle of Kursk?

For a long time it was considered a complete Soviet victory. From my understanding it is now looked at not so clear cut. Model in the north of the salient was stopped cold, but in the south Manstein had some success. The great tanks battle around Perestroika was actually a partial German victory. The support given was that the Soviet suffered a lot of tank losses while the German suffered few. Manstein wanted to commit his reserves, but Hitler baulked and ended the whole advance. The units that had supposedly lost so many tanks remained combat effective for a long time after the battle of Kursk indicating that they hadn't suffered the losses that the Soviets said they had.

In the end the Battle of Kursk caused losses that the Reich couldn't afford speeding up the end of the war.

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm

Good question. Although Glantz needs to be considered with a grain of salt just as all the other historical studies, I consider him one of the most actual on the topics and his studies seem to be well researched as far I can tell. Doesn't mean he is necessary right, or the state of understanding wouldn't change in the future, but he certainly cannot be ignored.

As to the question of Kursk, my opinion is that had it been launched earlier as desired by Mannstein, it may have produced some fruits. But even then, would a few divisions more captured have made any difference at the strategic scale? Not so much, perhaps at best it may have caused the Soviets to be more cautions and delay their late summer offensives, offering a longer pause for the Wehrmacht to refit, entrench and prepare. Perhaps even offering the chance for a gambit, moving some Panzers to Italy in the nick of time.

Kursk as it happened does seem more like a draw at the operational level, and a German defeat at the strategic level. It depleted many of the remaining high-quality formations, and the losses in experienced personnel appear to have turned out afterwards particularly detrimental. In the bigger picture, the Germans might have done better to go on the strategic defense after Kharkov II, and should perhaps have used these formations as firebrigades in the coming months and year. Perhaps if detached to Italy for the summer they might have at least made a difference there. But as it stands, Kursk seems to me a big waste of resources.

< Message edited by janh -- 5/12/2012 3:09:30 PM >

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 2

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 4:13:09 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

The Germans inflicted AFV losses on a 3:2 ratio in Prokorovkha or so, yes. But it was they who quit the field, not the Sovs, and the Sovs still had uncommitted reserves.

It wasn't a cheap win, but it was a win, bottom line.

Within a month all these units, beaten up as they were, launched their own offensive and cracked the Belgorod-Karkhov position for good (while Manstein was distracted by Tolbukhin down south, thinking that the Sovs couldn't recover that quickly.)

This was a rare case of Manstein being wrong, and Hitler being right. Had Manstein continued to press the offensive he would've gotten chewed up even further. He never realized that the Sovs still had half of an entire Front as yet not committed (the rump of Steppe front.) Glantz doesn't dispute any of this, he just fills in the details.

All that being said, Manstein's instincts prior to Kursk were the right ones; he was dubious about the whole operation by that point. But once it got going, his blood was up and he never went in for half measures, which is mostly a good thing, but not in this particular case.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 5/12/2012 4:19:05 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 3

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 4:16:57 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

The great tanks battle around Perestroika was actually a partial German victory.

Hehe, you mean Prokhorovka?

Kursk was more of a perestrelka than perestroika

(perestrioka = restructuring = what Gorbachev was trying to do, perestrelka = exchange of fire).

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 4

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 4:32:17 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

To some the glass is half full

Too bad it's almost empty!!

1941: huge German offensive along the whole front
1942: er, they only can afford an offensive in the south
1943: er, they can only attack a really small portion of the front (Kursk)

Can't you see a difference going on here? Not to mention that the Soviets knew (2 months before the attack) that the Germans would be attacking. They had in fact their own plans but decided to let the the Germans attack first, smash them and then carry on with their own offensive. Which was done.

So what victory are we talking about? "We smashed more tanks, we smashed more tanks!" Big deal! Too bad this did not stop the Red Army a iota...

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 5

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 4:40:36 PM

marcpennington

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline

For Prokhorovka, I can't recommend more highly Valeriy Zamulin's Demolishing the Myth. It's the best researched, cogently analyzed and balanced military history of any portion of the East Front that I've read. If only other authors could get the same kind of access he had to Red Army archives, including highly sensitive matters such as friendly fire incidents and confidential personal records. But even there I doubt many scholars would have the analytical skill and technical expertise to cut through these records like Zamulin does.

But from his research, it's hard not to to view the Soviet counter-attack at Prokhorovka as a cluster-f*#K on just about every level, if one that was much smaller in terms of engaged tanks then the historical legends built around it. (And there was never really a meeting engagement in the sense of tanks dueling it out in open fields--- it was Soviet tanks vs. entrenched German anti-tank assets.) That said, though, if Prokhorovka was a German tactical success, Kursk was already an operational failure by that date--- I just see no way the southern pincer could have advanced much further from the Psel line, and the northern pincer had already been halted. The Steppe Front was still there, after all. And such talk as if only Hitler had released the XXIV Panzer Corps is absurd--- as Zamulin points out, that Corps was vastly understrength and had barely over a 100 operational tanks at the time of the battle.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 6

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 4:43:18 PM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

No one is disputing that by the Battle of Kursk the war was lost to the Axis.

When the Germans invaded Russia in 1941 the historians didn't say, "Well this war is over. There is no point in recording anything." They recorded the war in books and articles. Were they wrong to do so?

Making absolute statements are foolishness. Here is one as an example, "We need only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down,"---Hitler.

As a rule, nothing is certain until it is done. History teaches us this, if anyone is willing to listen.

< Message edited by RCH -- 5/12/2012 5:10:03 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 7

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 4:52:22 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

No one is disputing that by the Battle of Kursk the war was lost to the Axis.

When the Germans invaded Russia in 1941 the historians didn't say, "Well this war is over. There is no point in recording anything." They recorded the war in books and articles. Were they wrong to do so?

Making absolute statements are foolishness. Here is one as an example, "We need only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down,"---Hitler.

Operations have ultimate goals. I mean, this is not a videogame in which the side which destroys more tanks wins. The German goal (at least that's what Hitler himself said) was preventing a Red Army offensive in 1943. Ergo, it is a Soviet victory no matter the local, tactical victories.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 8

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 5:33:17 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

When the Germans invaded Russia in 1941 the historians didn't say, "Well this war is over. There is no point in recording anything." They recorded the war in books and articles. Were they wrong to do so?

As a rule, nothing is certain until it is done. History teaches us this, if anyone is willing to listen.

Historians (note I make the difference between them and the military historians) are supposed to explain why and how the war was lost

They never ever waste their time with "ifs". Once you more or less know what happened (and why and how) you obviously can make some pertinent deductions...

"Nothing is certain until it is done" aka Hitler's gamble... We all know how it worked...

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 9

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 6:58:58 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

Surprised no one has linked to the book yet, here it is on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Kursk-David-Glantz/dp/0700613358/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1336845380&sr=8-7

I have only read a couple of his books and cannot say that they are a thrilling read...

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 10

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 7:10:49 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Surprised no one has linked to the book yet, here it is on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-Kursk-David-Glantz/dp/0700613358/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1336845380&sr=8-7

I have only read a couple of his books and cannot say that they are a thrilling read...

They are a chore to read through. It's safe to say they will never be made into a movie.

But they are worth the effort.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 11

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/12/2012 11:18:43 PM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

I don't know - I was give the book as a gift (my friends know me...) years ago and thought it such an intense leaden slog that I didn't last long. Especially difficult we're all the Company X moved here, while Company Y moved there...

I guess there is an audience somewhere for that stuff, but I'm not a part of it.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 12

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 12:44:11 AM

hjc

Posts: 66
Joined: 2/12/2009
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

Especially difficult we're all the Company X moved here, while Company Y moved there...

I guess there is an audience somewhere for that stuff, but I'm not a part of it.

Having read quite a few of his books I know what you mean. They are intended mostly as a reference work, and certainly don't romp along. But there is a genuine audience, small as it might be. For example many wargame scenario designers like his books because they can design authentic scenarios of battles that actually occurred, and include specific units that took part while knowing exactly where they were headed and what their goals were.

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 13

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 1:10:52 AM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

Are other Glantz titles better (at least in a readability sense) or do they all tend to be in the same vein? Given how much he is thrown around here I was thinking about giving him another shot with something else. Opinions would be helpful.

(in reply to hjc)

Post #: 14

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 3:47:16 AM

hjc

Posts: 66
Joined: 2/12/2009
From: Australia
Status: offline

I've not read all of Glantz's works so my opinion might change later on, but for readability I can't really recommend him. I'm not putting him down, I value his books but not for readability, but rather the sometimes overwhelmingly dense amount of information they contain.

The most readable of his I have, in the sense that it isn't a blow by blow operational study of each company and regiment's movements every day, is "operation barbarossa".

As an example of more readable operational account, I just finished 'The Korsun Pocket - the encirclement and breakout of a German Army in the East, 1944' by Niklas Zetterling & Anders Frankson.

It's a great mix of operational and first hand accounts, and very readable. In fact I stayed up later than I should a couple nights running because I couldn't put it down.

I hope Zetterling writes more like this.

http://www.amazon.com/KORSUN-POCKET-Encirclement-Breakout-German/dp/1935149849/

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 15

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 3:59:59 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

He's gotten somewhat better over time, his earliest books from the 90's are very tough sledding.

His best books are the ones coauthored with Jonathan House, who actually writes fairly well. That's a large part of the reason When Titans Clashed worked out so well and has become the standard single volume book on the war from the Soviet viewpoint. If you want to read a single work by Glantz and not torture yourself overly, that's the one to pick up.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to hjc)

Post #: 16

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 4:19:18 AM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

Thanks - I'll grab that one and try it out.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 17

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 4:42:13 AM

marcpennington

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline

If you're looking for something specifically on Kursk, the Zamulin book I mentioned above is a very good read despite it mass of technical data:

http://www.amazon.com/Demolishing-Myth-Prokhorovka-Operational-Narrative/dp/1906033897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336879856&sr=8-1

It's not whiz bang Paul Carrel/Stephen Ambrose kind of stuff, but it is a rock solid piece of scholarship that raises the bar (and then rips the bar out and throws it away) on what tactical scholarship on the East Front can accomplish with virtually unlimited access to the Red Army archives. (The author is director of the national battlefield at Prokhorovka, which must have helped.)

But as far as Glantz goes, although I am a tremendous fan of his work, and feel his judgments are mostly spot on, I am also usually just as maddened by the sloppiness of his writing. If he feels the need to quote one more Red Army General Staff daily summary making mention of place names and mile markers that are no where in the maps in the book... Let alone that the General Staff daily summaries are hardly the most revelatory and direct source of information on local conditions. And the typos: I swear, someone needs to stand over him as he writes and slap the back of his head every time he confuses "left" and "right." Albeit, trying to catch as many of these mistakes as possible can make for a good drinking game--- I think I caught 10 or 11 of them in just the first section of one chapter in To the Gates of Stalingrad...

That said, anyone read Barbarossa Derailed Volume 2 yet? I haven't tried ordering it yet after so many false release dates, but it appears like it it actually published.

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 18

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 5:01:35 AM

usersatch

Posts: 400
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

All that being said, Manstein's instincts prior to Kursk were the right ones; he was dubious about the whole operation by that point.

The giant Soviet artillery barrage minutes before the German offensive kicked off might have been a good sign not to attack, too.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 19

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 6:04:42 AM

hjc

Posts: 66
Joined: 2/12/2009
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

That said, anyone read Barbarossa Derailed Volume 2 yet? I haven't tried ordering it yet after so many false release dates, but it appears like it it actually published.

I saw today that it's actually in stock. What did you think of Volume 1?

(in reply to marcpennington)

Post #: 20

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 7:17:32 AM

marcpennington

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BofH

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

That said, anyone read Barbarossa Derailed Volume 2 yet? I haven't tried ordering it yet after so many false release dates, but it appears like it it actually published.

I saw today that it's actually in stock. What did you think of Volume 1?

It wouldn't be the first time that it was "in stock." I think Amazon actually had it as "shipping soon" to me last June. So I won't hold my breath til I see the book on a shelf somewhere, or hear from someone who actually his it in his hands...

Volume 1 though was a real game changer for me on my understanding of '41 and the importance and ferocity of the battles around Smolensk. I think it rather definitively settles such questions as whether the Germans could have taken Moscow if they had only not diverted south to Kiev, and for that matter shines a rather interesting light in WiTE terms on the various debates on a Soviet running away versus forward defense strategy. Still, all I said above on the frustrations of Glantz stands especially for that book, and I find baffling his decision to include "para-phrasings" of the various Soviet order and situational reports, especially as in many cases I was uncertain whether I was reading a direct quote or Glantz's research notes. Still, though, volume 1 is one of the absolute key revisionist books on the period.

(in reply to hjc)

Post #: 21

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 7:40:37 AM

glvaca

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

That said, anyone read Barbarossa Derailed Volume 2 yet? I haven't tried ordering it yet after so many false release dates, but it appears like it it actually published.

Yes, it has been out for several weeks-months and I have it. Not read though, waiting for the companion maps

On the Kursk book, it's actually one of his better readable books.

The conclusion isn't that the Germans won the battle. It's rather they haven't lost it as badly as the Soviet version after the war would have it.
and the Germans didn't cause tank losses in the order of 3:2, it's more like 6:1. 1943 was really bad for the Russians in tank versus tank combat. By then all of the German tanks could kill a T34-76mm while Panthers and especially Tigers outmatched anything the Russians had at that point of the war.

The Soviet Tank armies that were committed during the battle suffered heavy losses but were rebuild very quickly, to be depleted once again during the Kharkov counter attack and so on. The fact that they were rebuilt quickly doesn't mean they didn't suffer losses, rather, the Soviets could afford them, while the Germans couldn't.

(in reply to marcpennington)

Post #: 22

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 8:58:19 AM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The Germans inflicted AFV losses on a 3:2 ratio in Prokorovkha or so, yes. But it was they who quit the field, not the Sovs, and the Sovs still had uncommitted reserves.

When looking at the ratio you've mentioned it's obvious you have not read the books that have come out for the past 3-4 years about this battle. It's actually been there all the time in the official unit histories about Leibstandarte and so on. But people rather belived Soviet crap than the Waffen SS records of that battle and I can honestly understand that given the attitude towards anything SS after the war.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 23

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 9:23:45 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

U2, we can quibble about the tank losses all we want, but it really doesn't matter. Let's say it was as high as 5:1 in the German favor.

So what? They still lost. Kursk was an operational fiasco. Model's pincer stalled. Manstein couldn't chop off the salient all by himself. The losses he was suffering were not trivial. The Soviets still had massive reserves available.

The entire operational concept of Citadel depended on a quick, cheap win to chop the whole salient off and consume it. Instead, it had turned into a grinding materielschlacht. Pressing it further was just throwing good money after bad.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 24

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 9:32:51 AM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

U2, we can quibble about the tank losses all we want, but it really doesn't matter. Let's say it was as high as 5:1 in the German favor.

So what? They still lost. Kursk was an operational fiasco. Model's pincer stalled. Manstein couldn't chop off the salient all by himself. The losses he was suffering were not trivial. The Soviets still had massive reserves available.

The entire operational concept of Citadel depended on a quick, cheap win to chop the whole salient off and consume it. Instead, it had turned into a grinding materielschlacht. Pressing it further was just throwing good money after bad.

I was not talking about Kursk. I was talking about Prokorovkha. What you write about Kursk as a battle I agree with 100%.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 25

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 11:28:01 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

It was really immaterial what happened at Prokhorovka, as the German flanks were about to cave in ayway. Saying that the Germans won at Kursk is a little like saying that the Romans won at Cannae because their center initially inflicted 3:2 losses on the Carthaginian center.

Besides, normal losses on the Eastern Front in tanks was something like 8:1 in tanks in the Germans favor IIRC, and even then they couldn't win, so 3:2 must be seen as an unmitigated failure. The Germans couldn't afford to fight at that exchange rate.

_____________________________

Read my AAR:s ye mighty, and despair!
41Ger
41Sov
41Ger
42Ger
42Sov

(in reply to U2)

Post #: 26

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 12:07:28 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

If you're looking for something specifically on Kursk, the Zamulin book I mentioned above is a very good read despite it mass of technical data:

http://www.amazon.com/Demolishing-Myth-Prokhorovka-Operational-Narrative/dp/1906033897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336879856&sr=8-1

It's not whiz bang Paul Carrel/Stephen Ambrose kind of stuff, but it is a rock solid piece of scholarship that raises the bar (and then rips the bar out and throws it away) on what tactical scholarship on the East Front can accomplish with virtually unlimited access to the Red Army archives. (The author is director of the national battlefield at Prokhorovka, which must have helped.)

Most excellent book - wholeheartedly recommended!

And yes, as many already wrote here - the Soviet communist post WWII Prokhorovka myth about T-34's ramming SS Tigers and Panthers is busted for some years now... the battle was not as many had thought for decades (i.e. largest tank battle that ever was)...

But although the German looses were much much lower than previous thought (and Soviet looses much much higher) and that actual number of German tanks involved there was rather low - the end game was the same - the Germans had to leave the ground and whole operation Citadel (i.e. Kursk battle as a whole) was a failure (and costly failure)!

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to marcpennington)

Post #: 27

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 1:21:23 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 28

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 5:14:31 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

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

Good read!

BTW, I have two of the books mentioned in it:

The Battle of Kursk (1999)
by David Glantz and Jonathan House

Kursk: A Statistical Analysis (2000)
by Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson

BTW, at the time of the writing of the article in the link above (2004) the

Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943: An Operational Narrative (2005)
by Valeriy Zamulin

was not yet published...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 29

RE: Glantz and Kursk - 5/13/2012 9:34:58 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

BTW, I have two of the books mentioned in it:

The Battle of Kursk (1999)
by David Glantz and Jonathan House

Kursk: A Statistical Analysis (2000)
by Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson

BTW, at the time of the writing of the article in the link above (2004) the

Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943: An Operational Narrative (2005)
by Valeriy Zamulin

was not yet published...

Leo "Apollo11"

Those are the next three books on the list. (I promisde myself to buy no more until I finish all the ones I bought when Borders was going under.)

I find the Glantz/House books are easier to read than Glantz alone.

Strategy & Tactics #253 covered Kursk, and has a 4 page article on the Prokhorovka Myth.

Like how Rotmistrov destroyed 70 Tiger tanks out of the 5 that fought there.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 5/13/2012 9:40:51 PM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 30