OT: Battle of Kursk

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by Footslogger »

I often wonder why the Germans lost the battle of Kursk. Someone here at the forum posted a really good link explaining how Operation Citadels's plan was put into the hands of the Russains, by a spy know only as wether I think. The Russians were able to capture a Tiger Tank, near Lenningrad and found it impervious to everything except artillery. If someone has that link, please post it here. [&o][&o][&o]
User avatar
Krupinski
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:42 am

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by Krupinski »

I dont have the link, sorry. But i can tell you: the germans lost kursk mainly cause Hitler delayed a few times the date of the offense. So that the russians could prepare their defense. Hitler wanted to have the new tigers and panthers in the battle - thats the reason for the delay.

hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by hfarrish »

Thousand different factors really; the Germans were unlikely to win even if they had launched the offensive in April instead of June, and even if they had it would have been a lesser victory because the Sovs would have had fewer troops at that point. IMO the reality of the situation was that the Germans would have been far better off using those panzer troops in a mobile defense at that stage of the war rather than trying to recreate the great kessels of the past...

Even if the German tanks had met at Kursk, is there really any guarantee the pocket would have surrendered (the Germans were immediately forced back by very powerful counterthrusts around Belogorod and the north of the pocket - its not hard to believe those same reserve armies could have relieved any thinly held pocket)? It wasn't 1941 anymore, and the Soviet army was a very different beast. Kursk may have won the war for the Soviets, but there is no real evidence it would have meaningfully changed things for the Germans.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by Aurelian »

Attacking in the most obvious place didn't help either.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Attacking in the most obvious place didn't help either.

Yes, attacking massively fortified lines into an area where the Sovs were expecting an attack would seem to have a lot to do with it. I think the question is not so much why did the Germans lose at Kursk, but why did they even try? It was essentially a battle of attrition which the Germans could ill-afford.
Farfarer61
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:29 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by Farfarer61 »

In game terms only, it is not tactically feasible to attack a Sov fort belt organized by a good opponent. That's why gaming is fun, you can zoom off and try interesting things. In the real world, you may be ordered to attack, as on a big map it looks appealing to the the "leadership". In the game, unless your Sov opponent is kept off-balance and reacting, he or she cannot be defeated.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Attacking in the most obvious place didn't help either.

Yes, attacking massively fortified lines into an area where the Sovs were expecting an attack would seem to have a lot to do with it. I think the question is not so much why did the Germans lose at Kursk, but why did they even try? It was essentially a battle of attrition which the Germans could ill-afford.

Matters of prestige and politics. If they won, it would of restored their shaken prestige after the Stalingrad debacle. Then there was the political ramifications vis a vis their allies if they won. (Restored their allies shaken faith.) And up til then, they always triumphed during the summer months. Winning at Kursk would of confirmed that. To say nothing of the resulting shortening of the lines, wrecking of Soviet reserves, etc.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by hfarrish »


Curious side note...what if the Germans had attacked on an Easterly axis instead of a north south one? Seems like it would have been a relatively easy shift away from the thickest Soviet defenses. I'm sure there are lots of reasons but given the failure of the operation as it was, easy to second guess.
User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by Footslogger »

I always thought that Hilter should have avoided a war with Stalin for as long as possible. Then Hitler would still be getting that precious oil from Stalin until war broke out. As Hitler fought the Allies in the African desert, he could of attacked Stalin from the south.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by Aurelian »

North Africa was never meant by OKW to be more than a sideshow IIRC.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

In game terms only, it is not tactically feasible to attack a Sov fort belt organized by a good opponent.

eh? Maybe I'm not a good opponent, but I think that a good German can slice through Sov fortifications very easily, at least where he is able to ensure the participation of some pioneers, arty, and air support.
marcpennington
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:07 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by marcpennington »

ORIGINAL: hfarrish


Curious side note...what if the Germans had attacked on an Easterly axis instead of a north south one? Seems like it would have been a relatively easy shift away from the thickest Soviet defenses. I'm sure there are lots of reasons but given the failure of the operation as it was, easy to second guess.

That was actually an idea Hitler himself raised several times, and it's been treated actually as a pretty decent one in a lot of the literature since.

IMHO, it might have led to a minor tactical success--- the salient might have been collapsed from down the middle even if no real pockets resulted. But the Steppe Front would still have been there, the two fronts within the salient itself would have regrouped, and the subsequent counter-offensives probably would have developed along much the same lines.
marcpennington
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:07 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by marcpennington »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

In game terms only, it is not tactically feasible to attack a Sov fort belt organized by a good opponent.

eh? Maybe I'm not a good opponent, but I think that a good German can slice through Sov fortifications very easily, at least where he is able to ensure the participation of some pioneers, arty, and air support.


Though pioneers and artillery can help, I do think the 2-3 deep hex defensive belts the Soviets are able to throw up with their unit spam is a bit problematic, especially as I can't think of any examples in 1941 of deep defensive belts like the Soviets used at Kursk. And even at Kursk, the three army defensive belts were really only around 25 KMs thick total, with further rear front defense lines there mostly on paper and not really developed or manned.

My solution is that there needs to be some kind of surprise penalty for units that start the turn not in contact with the enemy but are attacked later in the turn. This could be some kind of leadership check influenced by morale/experience and all the obvious other factors (defending on a river or in a city seem obvious modifiers), but would result in a significant defensive penalty if it is failed (and maybe a much higher chance of routing). This I think might do a good job of eliminating unrealistically deep defensive belts and checkerboards and other such tactics that just scream "gamey" at me.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: map66
I do think the 2-3 deep hex defensive belts the Soviets are able to throw up with their unit spam is a bit problematic, especially as I can't think of any examples in 1941 of deep defensive belts like the Soviets used at Kursk.

Not sure what we're talking about now, how easy it is for Sovs to build forts, or how easy it is for Germans to attack them--those are two separate issues.

re building forts, I think there were plenty of fortifications in 1941 around Moscow, instance, and others could probably cite many other fortified locations. IIRC, the term "fortification levels" is kind of a misnomer--level 1 is simply foxholes for instance--I don't see what is unrealistic about the Sovs digging foxholes whereever they happen to be.

If we are talking about breaching forts, Level 1 and 2 forts are just not a serious obstacle in 1941 (a fortified ant is still an ant); while they will slow the Germans down a bit, they generally can't stop them, and even level 2 forts needs some time to construct.

What exactly is problematic about all of this? If anything, I think that Level 3 and higher forts may be too easy to overcome (and by 1943 this becomes much more of a problem for the Germans that the Sovs).
marcpennington
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:07 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by marcpennington »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: map66
I do think the 2-3 deep hex defensive belts the Soviets are able to throw up with their unit spam is a bit problematic, especially as I can't think of any examples in 1941 of deep defensive belts like the Soviets used at Kursk.

Not sure what we're talking about now, how easy it is for Sovs to build forts, or how easy it is for Germans to attack them--those are two separate issues.

re building forts, I think there were plenty of fortifications in 1941 around Moscow, instance, and others could probably cite many other fortified locations. IIRC, the term "fortification levels" is kind of a misnomer--level 1 is simply foxholes for instance--I don't see what is unrealistic about the Sovs digging foxholes whereever they happen to be.

If we are talking about breaching forts, Level 1 and 2 forts are just not a serious obstacle in 1941 (a fortified ant is still an ant); while they will slow the Germans down a bit, they generally can't stop them, and even level 2 forts needs some time to construct.

What exactly is problematic about all of this? If anything, I think that Level 3 and higher forts may be too easy to overcome (and by 1943 this becomes much more of a problem for the Germans that the Sovs).

The problem I see is not how hard it is to dislodge a single hex with fortifications in it (there I agree with you), or even to break through a solid continuous line of level 2-3 forts. The problem is when that line is followed by another and another line immediately behind it, 2-3 hexes deep. This kind of deep defensive belt is what I thought the discussion was about in the first place, and what I refered to as a "gamey" tactic.

And while the Soviets have the ability to blanket key avenues of the front in 1941 with these 2-3 hex deep defensive belts, the Germans barely have enough units even to make a continuous defensive line one hex deep at any point in the war. I'm actually not arguing with that being the case for the Germans--- that's historical. What I I just don't see historically are many parallels for defenses 20-30 miles deep being employed by the Soviets, with the exception obviously of Kursk.

In fact, if any side was expert at creating "deep" defenses like this, it was the Germans in the earlier periods of the war. Glantz's second volume on Stalingrad has good examples of how relatively weak German units on the flanks of the city were able to halt Soviet counter attacks with these kind of belts (just to cite an example of the top of my head). But even here, in terms of game scale, these defensive belts were hardly 10 miles deep (and thus should be reflected in fortification level in game terms), hardly the 20-30 mile deep Soviet belts one routinely sees in the game.
usersatch
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by usersatch »

This might be a little unconventional, but I think that, had Germany "won" Zitadelle, it would have hurt them more than help them in the long run. The reason being, the victory would have certainly come from the south (2nd Pzr Arm), but with devastating losses in numbers of "elite" troops and Panzers. They could have encircled huge numbers of Soviet troops and materiel, but as was proven before and after that, it had very little overall effect on the juggernaut (something morale also had no defense against). It's similar to the Battle of Gettysburg--a victory by Lee would have come at a dreadfully heavy cost to the South and, more importantly, when you compare those proportional losses to the vast manpower and resources of the North, it would have made little difference in the long run and only hasten the end given their finite amount of resources.
timmyab
Posts: 2046
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:48 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by timmyab »

ORIGINAL: map66
My solution is that there needs to be some kind of surprise penalty for units that start the turn not in contact with the enemy but are attacked later in the turn. This could be some kind of leadership check influenced by morale/experience and all the obvious other factors (defending on a river or in a city seem obvious modifiers), but would result in a significant defensive penalty if it is failed (and maybe a much higher chance of routing). This I think might do a good job of eliminating unrealistically deep defensive belts and checkerboards and other such tactics that just scream "gamey" at me.
You could do this and ideally I'd like to see something similar, but German armor mobility would have to be seriously handicapped or the game would become an auto-win for the Axis.In fact I'd go further and stop any forts being built more than two hexes from an enemy unit without a FZ present or unless near a city.
The problem stems from the Soviets being forced to stand like statues for a whole week while the German armor runs rings around them.Soviet deep defenses are the game equivalent of fall back positions.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: map66
The problem is when that line is followed by another and another line immediately behind it, 2-3 hexes deep. This kind of deep defensive belt is what I thought the discussion was about in the first place, and what I refered to as a "gamey" tactic.

We could argue about what is realistic or not, although such an argument would be pointless, because the reason Sov players do this in the game has nothing to do with history and everything with the fact that Sov units seem to be much weaker than their historical counterparts and cannot hope to do more than slow the Germans down a bit.
marcpennington
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:07 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by marcpennington »

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: map66
My solution is that there needs to be some kind of surprise penalty for units that start the turn not in contact with the enemy but are attacked later in the turn. This could be some kind of leadership check influenced by morale/experience and all the obvious other factors (defending on a river or in a city seem obvious modifiers), but would result in a significant defensive penalty if it is failed (and maybe a much higher chance of routing). This I think might do a good job of eliminating unrealistically deep defensive belts and checkerboards and other such tactics that just scream "gamey" at me.
You could do this and ideally I'd like to see something similar, but German armor mobility would have to be seriously handicapped or the game would become an auto-win for the Axis.In fact I'd go further and stop any forts being built more than two hexes from an enemy unit without a FZ present or unless near a city.
The problem stems from the Soviets being forced to stand like statues for a whole week while the German armor runs rings around them.Soviet deep defenses are the game equivalent of fall back positions.


I agree with you that more limitations would need to be placed on the panzers. Two potential major ones are coming in WiTW as far as a I understand---- counter attacks drain off MPs for the next turn and rail lines are modeled better. So probably any change like surprise rules or limits on fortifications away from the front would need to wait until those are implemented, along with hopefully better isolation rules.

Ideally though, some combination of these changes could make for a game that models better the tempo of historical operations---- an 80-100 mile surge forward, followed by a couple of weeks to rest and refit, rinsed and repeated, rather then the current one where a combination of deep defensive belts and too forgiving logistics leads it to be a constant couple hex grind forward each turn.

A similar tempo of constant grinding forward rather then short deep operations also affects Soviet offensives at least in late '42-'43 judging from scenarios like Red Army Resurgent and Decision in the Ukraine, though I'm far less sure what the root cause of that is.
marcpennington
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:07 pm

RE: OT: Battle of Kursk

Post by marcpennington »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: map66
The problem is when that line is followed by another and another line immediately behind it, 2-3 hexes deep. This kind of deep defensive belt is what I thought the discussion was about in the first place, and what I refered to as a "gamey" tactic.

We could argue about what is realistic or not, although such an argument would be pointless, because the reason Sov players do this in the game has nothing to do with history and everything with the fact that Sov units seem to be much weaker than their historical counterparts and cannot hope to do more than slow the Germans down a bit.


I don't disagree with you again. One solution, based kinda on the stacking rules from SSG's Decisive Battles, would be to give Soviet units in '41 a significant boost if say 3 divisions are stacked in one hex, while a penalty if only 1 is. Put in historical terms, 10 miles was an awful long line to hold for an under-strength '41 Soviet division, but they did indeed mount excellent defenses where forces were concentrated densely (east of Smolensk for example.) Like the SSG games, the other divisions in the hex might get an even bigger bonus if one of the units is particularly high morale. Obviously the bonus to adding multiple divisions to hexes would cut down on the ability to and attractiveness of deep defensive belts which just feel off.

Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”