Would the Germans be able to win the Russians if they won the battle of Kursk..?

Question

with substantial gains?

Answer 1

Yes because that would mean they managed to defeat more than half of Russian army,that would mean that Russians wouldn't have any more strategic reserves and that path towards Moscow would be left undefended.It sure would be the end for Russians.

You people are stupid...It wasn't over at Stalingrad even with almost fourth of German equipement lost there.Germans lost because Russians had millions and millions of soldiers and they concentrated them at Kursk,so if Germans won that would mean they litterally destroyed the Red army.Germany was best fighting force even as late as 1944.,don't give me that cr@p about defeat at Stalingrad.Stalingrad was a catastrophe but Kursk could have changed that.

Answer 2

~No. The conclusion of the war was written at Stalingrad. After Paulus surrendered the German 6th Army there, the Wehrmacht was defeated. It was just a matter of time.

Had the Soviets lost at Kursk, the British and American (and Free French, Free Polish, Australian and Canadian) contributions to the eventual fall of Berlin would have been much enlarged, but, as Churchill told Roosevelt, the only army that could take on the Germans on the continent was the Red Army.

The Soviets troops were every bit the equal of the Germans, Soviet generals were on par with the Germans and Soviet weapons (particularly tanks and rockets) were superior to that which the Germans had in the field. The German weapons that were in development could have changed the outcome if they had come on-line soon enough, but with what was available during the summer of '43, the Germans were outmatched.

The Soviets had more reserves to draw on than did the Germans and Soviet factories, thanks to Stalin's strategy of engaging in a fighting retreat to Stalingrad and making his stand on the defensible ground there allowed the Soviets to move their factories beyond the Urals, where production could continue and be stepped up pretty much out of the reach of German attack. Meanwhile, the US Army Air Corps, the Canadian RCAF and the RAF were making a shambles of the industrial infrastructure of Germany and Germany's sources of raw materials were slowly and inexorably being cut off.

Once the Soviets repelled Barbarossa and then won at Stalingrad, the German ability to win the war depended on getting the A-Bomb first and on getting the other new weapons into the field. When the Luftwaffe was beaten, the Germans ran out of time to do that. Contrary to what American history books might say and in spite of the exploits of John Wayne and 20th Century Fox, the Soviets had a well trained, well led, well equipped army with an intense determination to fight. The war would have been longer had the Soviets lost at Kursk but the outcome would have been the same. The Soviets won the war in Europe pretty much on their own. A loss a Kursk would not have changed that. If the tide had turned at Kursk, Stalin would have repeated the Stalingrad/Barbarossa strategy of falling back, over extending German supply lines, and making a stand on ground of his choosing at some pre-determined location where he would have had defenses in place. He had the time, equipment, production and manpower to do that and the Germans lacked the manpower, supplies, production and, most importantly, the time, to sustain their attack.

The question is academic, however. Given the logistics involved, the Soviet victory was assured before the battle started. Stalin and his generals wisely opted to fight a defensive war at Kursk and the defenses they implemented there were brilliant. The Germans simply lacked the means to defeat the defenses that had been established. Blitzkrieg depends on quickly attacking lightly defended targets by surprise. None of those necessary elements were extant at Kursk.

The Germans were out-fought and out-thought. Hoth, Manstein and Model were exceptional strategists, but they were out-witted by the Soviets and they were limited by their untenable supply lines. Blitzkrieg tactics work well in quickly taking large chunks of ground, but if a resilient foe like the Soviets decides to continue the fight, that ground cannot be held nor can the attack be sustained. Meanwhile, the Soviet counter-attacks were pre-planned to stop advancing at certain points so the reclaimed gains could be consolidated and held, then additional advances followed. Fighting an offensive war with time running out, the Germans were unable to do the same. With the irreplaceable losses at Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht could do nothing but fall back.

Why is it that we always hear that the Germans lost Stalingrad to the Russian winter? Kursk was every bit as intense and it happened in the summer. Isn't it time the Red Army and the Russian people got their due in the West?

Kursk was never intended, from the German side, to defeat the Soviets. The Germans knew that eventually the British and Americans were going to land on the continent. Since Rommel was being beaten back in Africa (because the men and supplies he needed were being redirected to Russia), the landings on the continent were going to come sooner rather than later. The Germans hoped for a significant victory at Kursk so as to bring Stalin to the peace table. With an armistice on the Eastern Front, the Germans could have prepared for and concentrated on the defense of the Western Front. Then, they could have engaged in a holding action while the new weapons went into full production and got into the field.

The fallacy of the German thinking was that the Soviets were not going to stop until the absolute defeat of the Nazis. Remember, Stalin and Hitler were allies when they invaded Poland. At the same time, each recognized that the other was a natural and dangerous enemy. Had the ingenious plan of Heydrich, Himmler and Goebels to convince Stalin that his top generals were planning a revolt not worked and had Stalin not purged his General Staff as a result, the planned invasion of Germany by the Soviets would have likely been launched before Barbarossa. The Soviets wanted (needed) the Nazi regime to fall and they weren't about to quit until it did.

Since Stalin was getting Lend-Lease aid from the US and substantial aid from the British, the Soviets could have and would have continued the fight even after a defeat at Kursk. Little of the aid was in the form of military supplies and equipment - the Soviets didn't need that, they had far superior weapons and the means to make more. The aid was in the materials and consumer goods they needed to keep production up. Only about 6% of total Soviet production during the war was Lend-Lease goods, but if more was needed, it would have been made available to keep Moscow in the fight. Meanwhile the German production continued to fall and their ability to produce was weakened by the day. Knowing this, there was no sane reason for the Soviets to have agreed to peace with the Nazis.

Kursk was a failure for the Germans both as a battle and as a strategy from the outset. What is most interesting about Kursk is that Guderian told Hitler he belived that an attack on Kursk, or any place else on the Russian Front, in the summer of 1943 would be a huge mistake. Hitler agreed. In spite of the fact that Hitler thought the attack was a mistake, he allowed his generals to proceed.

Answer 3

no because kursk wasn't a strategic battle but nothing more then a tactical battle with the purpose to eliminate a salient in the front line that the Russian army could use to start there next offensive.
In fact Germany did already lose the war in there first offensive when there failed to take Moscow

Answer 4

If the Japanese had gone into the Soviet Unoin instead of bombing Pearl Harbour then the Germans might have had a chance.Don't over look the Soviet Unions massive reserve force.If Japan had not dragged the USA into the war then thngs would have been a lot different.The Germans couldn't defeat the Soviet Union by themselves.Hitler was a imbecile,and a unstable drug addict.

Answer 5

I doubt it. Kursk changed hands several times during the Nazi invasion.

Answer 6

no.....because they can win the battle but now whole war.....in first great patriotic war of 1812 when Napoleon came to Russia,citizens of Moscow fired city and with army gone to east,then came general frost and same thing like with germans started kill them in frosty nights,so then army from east and Petersburg came and bashed them,so soon russians were been in Paris,so it was every times,even when Lithuania invaded Russia in 1600-th,people with out army but with support of cossacks generals bashed lithuanian army.....so how christians of Russia say,Russia have big support of Saint Sergey Radonejskiy-he is soul of Russia and God protects Russian land,so when germans in 1941 were near Moscow,Stalin said to take holy icons of saint christians and fly with them around Moscow few times per a day,so all knew that Germany was stopped in 50 km from Moscow....

Answer 7

not at all. they would just delay the defeat with, let`s say a few months. overstretched supply lines and gen. winter would take care of this later. don`t forget u.s. military support for stalin and huge amount of people from east.