DEBATE TIME:
ok here they are the battle of the bulge
and kursk
which was more important in the downfall
and why
i think this will be educational and fun
I’d say that the bulge was more important to the downfall, because it represents that “Last Gasp” for large German armor operations in WWII. “More important” is a difficult term to consider, because the events of WWII were intertwined and affected each other very much. Of coarse, both events had a tremendous impacts on the coarse and the outcome of the war.
Chris
Hi…
You may also want to consider the armor battles that occurred in North Africa (Alamein,Crusader,etc)and the breakout campaign in Normandy following the D-Day invasion. The Normandy campaign includes battles at Hill 112, Operation Goodwood, Operation Bluecoat, the Mortain counteroffensive,etc.
There were also many large armored operations on the Eastern Front, besides the Kursk offensive. The various battles for Kharkov and the Mius River battle spring to mind,along with a myriad of other battles.
As to which was more important, one could argue that Kursk showed the world that the panzers could be met on ground of their own choosing and at a time of their own choosing and be defeated (if not tactically, at least strategically, which is what your question actually asks). One could also argue that the Stalingrad campaign was the most important because it removed an entire German army from the war. That loss of well-trained and equipped soldiers and their equipment was instrumental in destroying the myth of German invincibility. It also caused the withdrawal of Spanish and Italian troops from the Eastern Front. That loss was more important than many people believe because it forced the Germans to use front-line infantry divisions to fill those gaps and to shore-up unreliable Hungarian, Bulgarian and Rumanian units.
By the time of the Battle of the Bulge, Germany was already defeated…it was just a matter of time.
Steven C. Johnson
There were some catastrophies for the Soviets before Kursk (Smolensk and Kiev, that damaged them severely in men and material), but based on your choices, Kursk seems a no-brainer. The German panzers were considered quality-wise better off than the Soviet armored forces, though the Russians still had many more tanks than the Germans. The thing that really hurt the Germans was the emphasis on the Elefant as a battering-ram and the delay of the offensive to build up their reserves of the new Panthers which ultimately broke down anyway. Had they not delayed the offensive and give the Russians time to build formidable defensive positions, than the battle might have ended differently. They Germans made a couple of dents, but delaying the attack 2 months was critical. It marked the end of large scale offensives in the East and the Germans began their long retreat. One might even argue that Kursk was more important than Stalingrad in determining the outcome in the East. For after that battle they stung a defeat on the Russians at Kharkov.
The Germans never had a chance in the B.O.B. Once the weather lifted it was mountain of fighter-bombers that crushed them in the daylight. The Panzers were more vulernable in the West against the overwhelming dominance of the Allied Airforces. The Germans never would have gotten as far as they did if the weather was clear, but one must remember the valiant defense of Bastagone in delaying the German timetable.
their seems to be a bit of a question in the middle of your answer
scj1014 and tigerman
i choose the bulge because it was the most famous tank battle
and kursk because it was the biggest
and it is true that one can argue that battles like normandy may have been more important, but that was not considered a tank v tank battle as is the other two
without a doubt Kursk. Kursk was the last chance the Wehrnmacht had to win the war. The Bulge was a desperate battle with no real hop of success. The Nazi war machine had its back broken at Kursk.
If I may, I have don’t think your underlying question is sound. First, why is the Battle of the Bulge, Ardennes '44 called an important tank battle? It was a large campaing with armored units. Large nos. of German armored assets were employed that punched through US lines. They were met by some US armored assets and dug in infantry units. They were eventually rolled back by US and British armor, air attacks and logistical exhaustion after they spent themselves trying to dislodge the US defenders.
If this is considered a “tank battle” then why not Operation Bagration? When the Soviet summer offensive rolled back hundreds of German units, armored and not – really breaking the back of the Wehrmacht, opening the door for the invasion of Poland, E Prussia and finally Germany itself. This was a huge campaign but shared many features as the Battle of the Bulge and was more significant a loss than the Battle of the Bulge (BOB means Battle of Britain to our UK friends).
If you want a significant true “tank battle” that was important to someone’s downfall, then why not the Invasion of France? The Ardennes offensive of 1940? German tank columns defeated the entire nation with one of the largest standing armies in the world at the time. How about that for “important”?
Kursk was a huge offensive with many significant tank vs. tank engagements. However, it was a huge CAMPAIGN once again. Many defensive rings of Soviet artillery and infantry with the back up of 100s of Red Army AFVs beat back a terrific onslaught of German units, many of them armrored. There were significant tank battles within the larger campaign of course.
However, if I were to discern your question – I think you’re trying to see which tank engagment was the most significant to the eventual downfall of Germany right? Well then I’d ask what was the most significant strategic point for the European war. Maybe Stalingrad. In my reading of events and geography, I’d say the inability of the Germans to take Moscow after the initial invasion is the most significant battle of the European war. How about the inability of the 4PD to take Moscow as the single most important tank battle of the European war? It led to the survival of the USSR and the eventual loss of the Germans.
You gotta know that the war was much more complex than the “celebrity” battles of Ardennes '44 and Kursk '43.
t26e4 yes i understand your point but i picked the kursk not because it was or was not the most important, it was the biggest
and well as important ( or not) the bulge was (is) the most well known
yes there are others that have been just as or more important but…[:D]
Hi Joe:
The Battle of the Bulge is famous to Americans – and and a nice (if farcical) movie with Henry Fonda kicking German butt was made. If you were to ask a Briton, he/she would say 2nd El Alamein or Goodwood. Ask a Russian, he might say Prokorovka (Kursk) or Kharkov. A Canadian or Pole might say the drive to close the Falaise Gap. Ask a German – your guess is as good as mine.
Remember FSM (and other AFV websites) aren’t exclusively read by Americans. You’d have many people saying the BOB isn’t the most famous. All about international perspective…
I’d definitely go with Kursk, as the Ardennes offensive pales in comparison. After Kursk the Germans never had another major victory in the East.
El Alamein would have to feature as well, especially when you consider that it paved the way for victory in North Africa, a victory which cost the Axis more troops than Stalingrad.
Karl
Mmmmm, I’d have to say:
1 Kursk - the Germans figured they had superior firepower but never counted on the will, strength & determination of a largely demoralised Soviet force, nor did they expect to be out-manouveured
2 North Africa - the British & Commonwealth divisions didn’t stand a chance against Rommels panzers, but Monty played smarter, not harder. Once the supply lines were cut, it was only a matter of time. Next stop - the soft underbelly of Europe
3 Normandy breakout (Caen & Goodwood) - self explanatory
4 Bulge - again, self explanatory
[2c]
kursk, definitely. prior to that, the germans still had some minor shot at maintaining some strength and superiority. but their armored forces just got destroyed in that battle, with some of their crack divisions getting annihilated. from then on, they were on the defensive, with little chance of making any successful attacks. the bulge proves that. it had some chance, but not much to begin with. the germans were betting on capturing enemy held bridges, gas, and on the bad weather holding, and all three of these variables were in doubt from the start. because of these uncertainties, it had little chance of success and was basically a death throw gamble. kursk on the other hand was a prize fight to the end, and afterwards it was all downhill for the germans. even if they had won the bulge, the germans couldn’t be sure the allies would stop their drive. supplies could be airlifted somewhat, and forces massed to attack the germans between the americans in the south and the british trapped in the north. there would have been few german units to maintain the double-sided front in any case, and i have a lot of doubts if they could even have held their own supply lines should they have made it to amsterdam. kursk destroyed their best fighting forces, and put germany on the defensive fro the rest of the war on the east, and it was the titanic struggle in the east that mattered most of all, or at least made the most difference in the downfall of hitler’s germany. the western allies freed europe, but stalin destroyed hitler.
Between the two campaigns you mention (they aren’t really battles per se), it was Kursk. Kursk was the real turn of the tide in the East. After Stalingrad, the Germans were not able to dictate the terms of the overall campaign anymore, but they still had the initiative at least operationally. After Kursk, the Russians called the tune, with the Germans always hustling to respond, and then it was just a matter of time.
The Ardennes Offensive would never have worked. It was one of Hitler’s bizarre fantasies, like the huge tanks and other foolishness he let himself be swept away by (thank God). The one thing it did do was waste Germany’s precious panzer reserve, more foolishness from Hitler, compounding his absurd strategic blunders of 1944.