Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-7559950-20130911012534/@comment-3428312-20140717055225

Lordganon wrote:

1. Did read your "scenario," GB. Doesn't seem that you did, mind. And, fyi, the reasons why the Soviets win each time has been covered.

2. That has little to nothing to do with why the Soviets won Kursk. They won it be having better forces in general. There's basically no way the Germans could have gotten through.

3. Hitler delaying did little. In fact, there is evidence that it helped the attack overall, giving more time to prepare. Had that not been the case, it would have ended up like later "grand" offensives did - abject slaughter of German forces.

4. Soviets were not stupid, as you seem to think. An offensive of that scale is kind of obvious - you know it is coming, provided you both look and believe intel. Barbarossa, they did neither, and they didn't believe it for "Blue" either. Kursk was even more obvious that those two events. they aren't going to miss it. That the Brits told them something was coming just adds to it.

5 Fortifications were basically not used at all at Kursk. Yes, they were there, but played little to no role. There is a reason why Kursk is also known as the largest tank battle in history. Something you seem to forget entirely.

6. Redirect reinforcements from North Africa? Not only is that not an option outright - costs him Rommel and his army if he does that, in addition to giving the Allies the Med - but doesn't help the overall size of German forces much. In the context of the Eastern front, a couple hundred thousand men means very little.

7. To call it "unavoidable" even with all of those things is simply not true. And if you looked into it you'd know that.

8. A fifth of the Soviet Army? Yeah, no.

9. Sorry, but there is no truth to that manpower assertion. And even if there was, saying the eastern Ukraine - an area somewhat evacuated before the Germans got there, and not that large in size - fought it off is even more ludicrous.

10. They were, in fact, not hard-pressed to replace their losses.

11. If you're going to mention the 1943 - and 1942 - offers, you may want to, you know, actually look at the offers. The Soviet offer was peace for 1914 borders, and economic ties. So, basically a large net loss to the Germans and their Allies. They would have stupid to take it, and it would never have been anything besides a truce anyway. Stalin was giving them a chance to essentially surrender before tearing them apart.

12. Wrong - just makes your "scenario" worse.

13. Soviets knew about Kursk in advance from more then the Brits. As stated, not stupid.  1. Clearly you didn’t, as it addressed most of what you continue to peddle. As well, I do believe I had to have read if I wrote it, correctly? Let’s not be unduly sarcastic now.



 2. No, it shows you don’t know basic facts about Kursk. As well, if the Soviets were so much better than the Wehrmacht, than explain the disproportionate losses they suffered?

3. His delays did little? Again, it shows you have failed to read anything I posted. As I have cited several times now, the delays allowed the Soviets to build up their defenses that grinded the German assault down. As well, I’ll need a source for the claim the delays helped the Germans, as the only thing the delays gave them to my knowledge is more Panthers and Tigers (Which suffered chronic reliability problems, reducing their effect during the offensive).

4. For the OTL start of Kursk that holds true, but all evidence I’ve seen points to the Soviets not learning about the offensive until after the original planned date. Constantly putting off an operation lowers it’s security, you know. Although I didn’t state it (I honestly forgot to add it in), another butterfly of the Anti-Nazi coup is the crippling of Soviet spy efforts in Germany which should further help. As well, please state where I said the Soviets were stupid.

5. Again, have you even read about Kursk? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

6. LG, I seriously believe you need to re-read my scenario. As I stated, the Afrika Corps is also evacuate while the reinforcements are sent East, as Rommel SUGGESTED to Hitler in March. As well, a couple hundred thousand men added to the OTL forces would assist them a lot. As to the Med falling to the Allies, you seem to have forgotten about Italy and especially Sicily.

7. It is unavoidable with the scenario I’ve outlined. You just need to read, it clearly.

8. And thus it is now clear you haven’t read up on Kursk, as ⅕ of the Red Army was in the salient in OTL.

9. Wrong you are, as OTL Soviet data shows: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=198614

10. In this ATL they would be. See above.

11. You should follow your own advice, as the 1914 borders offer was before Bagration. In 1943 before Kursk, it was Brest-Litovsk borders. In my ATL, however, the Germans are able to achieve borders along the current frontline.

12. False, as I’ve shown many times.

13. The OTL start of Kursk. All evidence points to them not knowing until after the proposed start date of Citadel (For example, they didn’t start work on their fortifications until after Hitler made the delay).