>>1313918
Hitler lost when he failed to capture Soviet oil fields, Kursk wouldn't change anything.

>>1313928
hitler lost when her mom shit it to this world

>>1313918
>Was Kursk winnable like he said?

Possibly, but bear in mind that Manstein's Kursk likely wouldn't bear much resemblance to the historical Kursk. For starters, the overwhelming bulk of casualties on both sides were in the Soviet counterattacks, not the German attack. And without such a huge buildup, it's less important of a target. It would straighten the German line, but not a whole lot else.

>Was Hitler correct to move the boys to Italy?

It was probably necessary. Mussolini's government was collapsing, and you need SOMETHING up there to keep the Americans from simply walking into Austria.

> Would winning at Kursk even have mattered like Guderian said?


Yes/no. Kursk itself is pointless. The troop buildups in the area are enormously important. It's less about winning and holding Kursk as it is about pinching off that salient and destroying the troops inside. You need to pull a rabbit out of your hat on the Eastern Front, or you're just going to be smothered.

>>1313928
wrong

he lost 1941 when he didn't capture Moscow and lost almost Heeresgruppe Mitte to counterattacks by 500k soviet reinforcements.

In fact the war was lost in 1939 but whatever.

>>1313918
>Was Kursk winnable like he said?
tl;dr: no.

By the time the offensive was called off, the Wehrmacht sustained about 40% casualties, which that alone is devastating for an army.

but to sustain casualties that heavy to advance less than 15 kilometers on a 120+ kilometer encirclement, it was clear that they weren't going to complete the encirclement of the Red Army at that rate.

>Was Hitler correct to move the boys to Italy?
yes and no. King Emanuel did arrest Mussolini and offered the entire Italian military to the allies to aid in the defeat of Germany. So if Hitler didn't move in to take as much of Italy as possible, the Wehrmacht would have been fighting in the Alps Mountains in Austria instead of the Italian peninsula.

but by this point it didn't really matter, it was just a matter of how long would it take to defeat Germany, rather than if they can be defeated.

>Would winning at Kursk even have mattered like Guderian said?
it was an attempt to encircle 1/3 of the Red Army, if it was pulled off, they hoped it would be enough to bring Stalin to the negotiating table and stop the war in the east, I doubt even losing there would cause the Soviets to lose their nerve though. It would have dealt a serious blow to the Red Army though, but probably not fatal.

Of course it was

The problem was basically that the US kept resupplying all the losses of the USSR which it then threw against the germans immediately, the amount of US jeeps destroyed by the wehrmacht during that battle was obscene

Imagine you're playing an RTS and every time you destroy an enemy unit there's three new ones popping up in the enemy base without him having to spend any resources on it

Basically the USSR was cheating the whole time. But delusional vatnik putintards will blabber on about MUH GR8 WAR and think they defeated germany all on their own kek

>>1316209
Why is this >muh asiatic human wave bullshit allowed on /his/?

>>1316223
>>1316223
>STALIN DINDU NUFFINS

Kys bolsheboo

>Daily reminder that soviet human wave tactics were a real thing and are a fact of military history

>Daily reminder that 99% of all red army political comissars were jewish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4aHIeCn008 [Embed]

"According to the Soviet Union's own estimates, the Red Army losses in the war totalled more than 11 million troops, over 100,000 aircraft, more than 300,000 artillery pieces, and nearly 100,000 tanks and self-propelled guns. Other authorities have put the losses of military personal far higher, as high indeed as 26 million. The Red Army troops were untrained, uneducated, often unprepared. The losses continued unabated right to the end of the war; indeed, more tanks were lost every day in the final battle for Berlin than had been lost even in the Battle of Kursk. Stalin sought victory at any price, and the price his men paid was astronomically high. Red Army officers and troops were told to obey orders without question and to avoid undertaking anything on their own initiative. Instead of mounting tactical sophisticated attacks, they often stormed the enemy lines in frontal assaults, incurring losses so heavy that it took time even with the vast resources at the Red Army's disposal to replace them. The result was that the war on the Eastern Front took far longer to win than it would have done with more intelligent and less profligate military leadership." Quoted in: Richard J. Evans (The Third Reich at War)

>>1316234
Enemy at gates is real history, The post

>>1316234
Pretty good video m80 :))))))

>>1313918
It was possible, but it was a long shot. It's always risky to attack a numerically superior force who knows you are coming and has prepared defenses in depth. That being said, the Germans had won against worse odds, so there was a chance of victory. But the ability to sustain such a high rate of casualties in what became a prolonged battle of attrition was something the German war machine couldn't handle.

Defending Italy with German troops was also necessary given the state of the Italian Army at that point.

Kursk would've mattered to some degree, much like >>1314023 says. Winning at Kursk also would have given the Germans momentum to continue the offensive, although it's questionable how much they'd be able to utilise this given the casualties they would sustain even in a victory at Kursk. Sheer exhaustion would have slowed their advance after winning as well, just as it did after retaking Kharkov.