The relevance of the Battle of Kursk in contemporary warfare

Battle of Kursk: A Discussion of its Relevance on Contemporary Warfare
Background
One of the reasons that the Battle of Kursk remains relevant even today revolves around the fact that it remains one of the most intense and greatest battles of World War Two—and of modern warfare some argue. Examining the mere facts that surround this battle that concerned Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are very telling. “Almost 3 million men, a full eight thousand tanks, and nearly five thousand warplanes broke all records for both the costliest single day of aerial warfare and the largest tank battle in the history of mankind” (Roberts, 2013). One can easily assess that if the Germans had been victorious over the red army, it’s within the realm of possibility that they might have been able to gain a more decisive upper hand, regardless of their more devastating losses in the major cities of Russia.
Kursk is a town in Russia that most people have never heard of. It is in the south, just 300 miles south of Russia and one of the main railway lines goes right through it. Given where it is situated, its location made it obvious where the Germans would attempt to attack them, allowing them to prepare defensively in the most efficient manner. There are other battles of the Second World War that receive more attention and are given more weight in the cannon of history and in ending or changing the course of the war. However, true scholars of the Second World War, know that the battle of Kursk needs to be viewed as a more of a turning point. For example, preeminent historian Dennis Showalter, argues that “The battle of Kursk was the Eastern Front’s transition point…and its point of no return” (2013).
Before this battle began, Hitler was flown to meet with Field Marshal Erick von Manstein: Manstein wanted to move forward with their infiltration being of the mindset that since their opponents knew what they were going to do, they might as well make their move as quickly as possible (Roberts, 2013). However, Hitler postponed, wanting to wait until the weather was warmer and the ground thawed, perhaps hoping that less bitter weather might give his troops an advantage. However, by the beginning of summer, the German troops that remained really were faced with a daunting mission to complete. “In some sectors of the Russian defensive areas, artillery regiments outnumbered infantry by five to one, with more than 20,000 guns trained on the oncoming Wehrmacht tanks. These included more than 6,000 76.2mm anti-tank guns and 920 Katyusha multiple rocket launchers” (Roberts, 2013).
The Germans were outnumbered, outmaneuvered and outmatched in ways that almost definitely ensured their defeat before they had even begun. The Russians had sought for the entire support of the residents of the Kursk region—civilians as well (Roberts, 2013). Over 3,000 miles of trenches had been dug along with numerous miles upon miles of barbed wire obstacles, including ones that carried an electrified charge (Roberts, 2013). The defensive zones were areas that seemed insurmountable to penetrate, leading to certain death: they contained thousands of mines that were designed to destroy both tanks and soldiers (Roberts, 2013). The Germans nevertheless continued to move forward with a determination that was tinged with despair, but it came as no surprise to anyone that they were stopped after stalwart Russian resistance (Roberts, 2013). One of the reasons why this is such a noteworthy battle is that in the performative aspect of the war, after this defeat, the Germans were never able to recover. They never seemed like they might win the war again, something that had to have impacted their troops mentally, ensuring their further defeat. In terms of the two armies weaponry, they were evenly matched. As Roberts points out, “…in the end it came down to the men operating such machinery, and the speed with which they could adapt to the new tactics” (2013). This is a point that is significant even today. As war has evolved from a technological standpoint, so much of the success of technology, invention and the digital age still depends on the human minds operating these innovations. Human critical thinking, split-second decisions and intuition are still vital elements when it comes to winning a war. This is as true then as it was during the Battle of Kursk as it is today. Also, as Showalter demonstrates, the background and overall mentality of the soldiers is significant as well. Most soldiers will be tough as heck when it comes to defending their motherland—this is specifically true for Russians, who have a deep love for their country and deep sense of responsibility towards it. Showalter also illuminates that there is something very specific about the Russian experience with reality that made them perhaps a tougher soldier: “Russian soldiers were drawn from a society and culture where suffering pain and inflicting it were the stuff of everyday” (2013). The Germans were simply outmatched when it came to inflicting pain: the Russians excelled at it, as it was after all, a part of their lives in wartime and in peacetime. This superior talent, combined with the fact that there were simply more Russians than Germans, helped to secure the Russian victory of this battle.
Details and Analysis
The German offensive before the battle had begun was geared for one with political benefits as well. The Germans were aware that the Russians were becoming increasingly fatigued, particularly given the fact that Britain and America refused to open up an additional front in the west (Trueman, 2015). There was a tremendous amount riding on this battle: if Russia was defeated, it might easily crumble its relationship with the Allies in the west, something that Germany could only benefit from. Even though Germany had suffered an embarrassing defeat in the battle of Stalingrad, they had also shown their powerful ferociousness during Operation Barbarossa, releasing a commanding Blitzkrieg on the Red Army (Glantz &House, 2004). But even so, the Germans had the burden of showing the world that their army and their strength had not been significantly wounded at Stalingrad and that they were still as tough as ever.
Germany’s industrial sector was in tip-top form, continuing to produce weaponry at a massive rate. Before the battle of Kursk officially began, the Russians had retreated east and the Germans wanted to take out the town of Kursk to prevent the Russians from attacking their troops at Orel and Kharkov, essentially encompassing them between two major Russian collectives (Trueman, 2015). Hitler offered no uncertain backing for the attack mid-Spring. His command asserted: “This offensive is of decisive importance. It must end in swift and decisive success. Every commander, every private soldier, must be indoctrinated with awareness of the decisive importance of this offensive. Victory at Kursk will be a beacon for the whole world” (Trueman, 2015). Thus in order to ensure their success, Germany gathered just under one million soldiers in the area including over 10,000 weapons including a couple thousand forms of aircraft, and just under 3,000 tanks (Trueman, 2015). It wasn’t just that such a huge portion of the military budget was dedicated to the success of this operation, it was that the offensive actions were planned meticulously more than any other maneuver had been (Trueman, 2015). In part, this was because, Hitler commanded that no failure was at all acceptable (Trueman, 2015). The stakes were incredibly high for Germany and they attempted to plan accordingly.
Russia in turn, had developed a defensive strategy that would ensure that the Germans exhausted themselves before the real battle even began. Rokossovsky and Vatutin were the two generals who were leading this defensive. There was also a group of reserve troops stationed near Koniev who were led by Marshall Zhukov (Trueman, 2015). The Russians were easily matched with their own weaponry: over 20,000 portions of artillery, just under 4,000 tanks and more than two thousand planes (Trueman, 2015). However, more significantly, the Russians proved they had a better strategy: they predicted where the Germans would attempt to rely on their tanks and then laced those areas with anti-tank artillery guns (Trueman, 2015). By the start of the summer in 1943, there were 300,000 people of Kursk who were helping the troop erect defenses and create trenches (Trueman, 2015).
An additional reason that Russian troop were so victorious often centered on their mentality and their proactiveness. Russian shock troops seized German captives before the battle had even begun—this was an initial blow to the German morale.
“To pre-empt the attack, the Russians launched a massive artillery bombardment at 02.00 on July 5th” (Trueman, 2015). This was a secondary blow to the German morale and left them frantically regrouping for over two hours. Once the Germans had reorganized, they went hard and forward with their tanks, using over 500 tanks to engage in a main thrust. They continued this patter for a period of days at the cost of their soldiers and at the cost of their weaponry. One could argue that while they had been well prepared with artillery and tanks, they continued to be massacred by Russia’s anti-tank guns. “Russian tank commanders also quickly learned that if they attacked a Tiger side-on, its armour was thinner and more vulnerable” (Trueman, 2015). This is an illustration of the type of learned strategy and adaptive techniques that need to be made during battle. Once the weaknesses of an opponent are discovered, one must exploit their weaknesses as much as humanly possible in order to leverage those flaws and gain the upper hand of battle.
Causes
Many scholars of history and of World War Two often view the previous defeat of the German army as one of the major causes of this battle. Some scholars consider it to be Hitler’s reaction to the embarrassing and all encompassing defeat during the Battle of Stalingrad. Hence, many view the cause of the battle of Kursk to be largely a result of the need of Germany to recapture their sense of dominance on the eastern front in a punishing blitzkrieg offensive (history.com). In fact, one can even argue that the causes of this battle’s defeat were also mapped out a head of time, as Hitler and his troops kept postponing their movement forward, something that meant that the soviet army had a wealth of time to prepare and re-prepared. This meant that the Germany army soon “…found themselves outnumbered, outgunned, extremely low on food and medical supplies and surrounded by Russians” (History.com). While they had a chance to escape, Hitler ordered, they “hold their positions to the last man and the last round…” (History.com). This was an order that meant certain death to so many of them; Hitler also promised additional provisions, but they never arrived. This example shows that the German army was rotting from the inside—they couldn’t trust their own leader not to lie to them or to protect their interests when defeat was imminent. These facts show that the German army was in many ways destined to lose this battle.





















References
Glantz, D. M., & House, J. M. (2004). The Battle of Kursk. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.
History.com. (n.d.). Battle of Kursk: Outcome and Facts. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-kursk
Roberts, A. (2013, August 31). WWII's Greatest Battle: How Kursk Changed the War. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/wwiis-greatest-battle-how-kursk-changed-the-war
Showalter, D. E. (2013). Armor and blood: The Battle of Kursk, the turning point of World War II.
Trueman, C. N. (2015). The Battle of Kursk - History Learning Site. Retrieved from https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/famous-battles-of-world-war-two/the-battle-of-kursk/