Battle of Kursk 1943 - World War II

[vostok]

Modern. As in today. In WW2 they still carried weight.

No, they don't. It doesn't matter how much you have man power if you do not have equal technology and equal level of military management. It was so already in times of colonial wars.

 

[Army research]

Numbers are nothing in modern days wars. Red Army was well experienced in the middle of 1943 and our commanders were smarter.

I agree ,
Sevastopol in the first year of the war , the small garrison completely surrounded still fought for 3 months,
The same happened with the Germans in sevastopol in 1944, the Germans barely held on for 3 weeks

 

[Signalian]

Numbers are nothing in modern days wars. Red Army was well experienced in the middle of 1943 and our commanders were smarter.

Completely disagree.
Kursk battle proves that numbers mattered most. The amount of men and material that Soviets put in the war and the amount of losses in men and material that Soviets suffered were greater than Germans, still Soviets won the battle.

It was the stupidity of the German command more than that of Soviet "smartness" (as you put it). If the Soviet commanders were smart and the Red Army was experienced, the losses suffered against Germans wouldn't have been monumental. Tactically the Germans held an upper hand, but failed miserably at the strategic level, to which the Red Commanders had no involvement.

Modern. As in today. In WW2 they still carried weight. The fact was Germans were outnumbered, outgunned and outfronted.

Agreed and still the Germans gave a bloody nose to Red Army amounting massive losses to Red Army.

I do, I was just talking about the only ongoing indo pak active warfront , anything above battalion level ops in those areas are not possible due to terrain

You fail to get the picture. As the numbers increase so do the size of the formations.
If the terrain that you mention is Punjab, then in 1971, a Pakistani Brigade-sized ad-hoc force (3 regiments) raised from battalion-sized formation managed to dislodge an entire Indian Division from its offensive posture.
Had this force been used at battalion-level only,each regiment on its own, the result would have been failure. But 3 were grouped together to give maximum effect in firepower.

 

[vostok]

Completely disagree.
Kursk battle proves that numbers mattered most. The amount of men and material that Soviets put in the war and the amount of losses in men and material that Soviets suffered were greater than Germans, still Soviets won the battle.

It was the stupidity of the German command more than that of Soviet "smartness" (as you put it). If the Soviet commanders were smart and the Red Army was experienced, the losses suffered against Germans wouldn't have been monumental. Tactically the Germans held an upper hand, but failed miserably at the strategic level, to which the Red Commanders had no involvement.

Red commenders won both tactically and strategically. If they were not smart and experienced they would loose.

 

[Army research]

Completely disagree.
Kursk battle proves that numbers mattered most. The amount of men and material that Soviets put in the war and the amount of losses in men and material that Soviets suffered were greater than Germans, still Soviets won the battle.

It was the stupidity of the German command more than that of Soviet "smartness" (as you put it). If the Soviet commanders were smart and the Red Army was experienced, the losses suffered against Germans wouldn't have been monumental. Tactically the Germans held an upper hand, but failed miserably at the strategic level, to which the Red Commanders had no involvement.


Agreed and still the Germans gave a bloody nose to Red Army amounting massive losses to Red Army.


You fail to get the picture. As the numbers increase so do the size of the formations.
If the terrain that you mention is Punjab, then in 1971, a Pakistani Brigade-sized ad-hoc force (3 regiments) raised from battalion-sized formation managed to dislodge an entire Indian Division from its offensive posture.
Had this force been used at battalion-level only,each regiment on its own, the result would have been failure. But 3 were grouped together to give maximum effect in firepower.

Sir I was talking about Kashmir alone, there bigger than battalion level ops are hard due to terrain,
I agree in plains we need division and sector level formations performing tasks in cohesion,
Not small bat level ops

 

[LeGenD]

The Wehrmacht was fighting a two-front war by 1943; US-led forces defeated Erwin Rommel in Africa (i.e. Operation Torch) and thrust into Italy (i.e. Operation Baytown), and American Lend-Lease program addressed Soviet logistics problems. Conversely, Allied forces began to bomb German towns and industries using long-range bombers. Under these pressures, the Wehrmacht was not in the position to achieve a breakthrough in its Eastern Front.

Food for thought:

http://canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/s...opp-keynote-2010-military-history-colloquuim/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/08/hitler-germany-campaign-collapsed

 

[Signalian]

Red commenders won both tactically and strategically. If they were not smart and experienced they would loose.

Mate, i have validated my point through some sense and logic, i hope you will do too instead of making claim.

Sir I was talking about Kashmir alone, there bigger than battalion level ops are hard due to terrain,
I agree in plains we need division and sector level formations performing tasks in cohesion,
Not small bat level ops

Please have a look at kashmir region, Kashmir war of 1947-48, operation Grandslam and kargil conflict.
Can you come up with a Brigade level battle plan in kashmir region?