Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kursk had a loss of 550,000 Axis soldiers, the Surrender of Italy had a effect of 2.5 million Axis soldiers leaving the battle, with more than 100,000 switching sides. (net 2.6 million)
Yugoslavia's coup caused 300,000 troops to switch sides to the allies (net 600,000)
So those two had, in effect, robbed the Axis of 3,200,000 troops, more than any battle in either theatre.
TonyT already dissected the numbers, but the only thing I would add to what he said is that there also needs to be an accounting for what kind of troops we are talking about losing. Non-frontline quality garrison infantry divisions, non-motorized and poorly trained/equipped Italian units, etc. are nothing even closely comparable to the elite panzer and mechanized infantry divisions that were lost in battles like Kursk. The Eastern Front consumed the absolute best of the best the Germans had to use, the forces that comprised the offensive core of their army and couldn't be easily replaced. The offensive force expended at Kursk comprised nearly 18+ months of production and the best replacement troops available.
The Battle of the Bulge, the entire battle/campaign wasn't even to the scale of a single wing of a pincer at Kursk.
I would just state that the Battle of the Bulge was the largest battle fought on the western front in Europe and involded more troops on a larger scale then many realize. By no means was it on a scale of Kursk but it had about 1/3 the number of troops or more involved that fought at Kursk. Most think of the Battle of the Bulge as the 83,000 US troops defending the Ardennes when the 250.000 Germans attacked. But in reality the US won the battle because it moved its troops so fast as to plug holes until more help arrived. The battle involved over 1 million troops before it was over. The US comitted most of the First and Third armies which was over 600,000 troops and the Germans involved over 500,000 troops before it was over. Also the US 1st and 3rd armies had over 2000 tanks and about 1000 self propelled tank destroyers of which many fought in the battle. The Germans commited about 1000 tanks and self propelled guns from what I have read by the time the battle ended.
From what I have read Kursk involved at least 2 million troops and up to 6000 tanks from both sides.
As for aircraft the weather grounded most of them for most of the battle. I believe the Germans did use about 1000 planes in the battle. I do know that by April 1945 the US alone had over 14,000 combat aircraft in the theater.
Kursk I believe used about 4000 Soviet aircraft and maybe 1000 German. I will also say that Kursk was fought with so much savageness from the hate the Germans and Russians had for each other. I mean to compare the worst thing I heard in the Battle of the Bulge was the Germans shooting 66 US unarmed prisoners but at Kursk they would hang each other they hated each other so much. It just seemed both sides would do what ever they wanted to each other. In the Bulge I dont think the bloody hate to rip out each others guts was as strong and thats another reason I consider Kursk so nasty.
That was the largest battle on the western front which was a large battle by any standards but no where near the size of Kursk and some of the very large battles on the Eastern front where I would say there was close to 8 million troops involved over the entire front from both sides.
I still stick to my guns that the USSR and the USA were without a dought the two major countries that contributed to winning the war. Ron
I would just state that the Battle of the Bulge was the largest battle fought on the western front in Europe and involded more troops on a larger scale then many realize....
That was a good post for putting the Battle of the Bulge into perspective from a logistical point of view, but I would argue that from a strategic point of view the battle in the Ardennes was not critical or frankly that important to the success of the Allied victory.
Regardless of the casualty figures suffered by allied forces they were certainly sustainable. Even if the Germans had achieved their tactical goals, the capture of Antwerp, it would have had no baring on the wars outcome. As a result it was a pointless and futile battle, doomed to failure from its inception. If anything, the Battle of the Bulge only turned Allied pre-battle delusions about Germany's fighting capabilities into reality.
That was a good post for putting the Battle of the Bulge into perspective from a logistical point of view, but I would argue that from a strategic point of view the battle in the Ardennes was not critical or frankly that important to the success of the Allied victory.
Regardless of the casualty figures suffered by allied forces they were certainly sustainable. Even if the Germans had achieved their tactical goals, the capture of Antwerp, it would have had no baring on the wars outcome. As a result it was a pointless and futile battle, doomed to failure from its inception. If anything, the Battle of the Bulge only turned Allied pre-battle delusions about Germany's fighting capabilities into reality.
I would basically agree with you about that. I feel the allies and the USSR would have still easily won the war. But I was just pointing out that it was about the only battle fought on the western front on a stage even close to involving the number of troops in most of the battles on the eastern front. By far the USSR threw the most ground troops in the war and suffered the most causualties by a very wide margin. Its just when ever you hear or read about the Battle of the Bulge they only even mention the 83,000 US troops in the area at the time of the attack. Most people dont realize that US did show and prove how well mobilized their army was to move so many troops so fast to the battle area. They darn near moved the main parts of the first and third armies into the area to get over 600,000 troops involved. And most dont know that Hitler ended up putting over half a million troops into it. Course I totally agree it was stupid and did not change the outcome of the war at all maybe just added a month or two in time. It makes you wonder how many more ground troops would the US have mobilized if the USSR had fallen. I had read that the US based the # of divisions of ground combat troops on the outcome of whether the USSR fell or not. The US had planned over 300 divisions had the USSR fallen but scaled it back to 90 later when they did not of course and tied up nearly 70% of the German army. I also read that Roseavelt put a cap of 8.3 million on the US army so as not to dive into too many men from the industrial industry. Ron
But I was just pointing out that it was about the only battle fought on the western front on a stage even close to involving the number of troops in most of the battles on the eastern front.
How are you figuring the too oft ignored Battle of the Hurtgen Forrest in your recounting? Like the overall Ardennes offensive the slaughter in the Hurtgen Forrest takes second fiddle to Bastogne which one might argue wasn't really that important to either the Germans or the Allies in the overall scheme of things.
How are you figuring the too oft ignored Battle of the Hurtgen Forrest in your recounting? Like the overall Ardennes offensive the slaughter in the Hurtgen Forrest takes second fiddle to Bastogne which one might argue wasn't really that important to either the Germans or the Allies in the overall scheme of things.
I agree with you as the Hurtgen forest was a very tuff fight by far. I guess becasuse everyone got scared during the Battle of the Bulge that the Germans would split the US and British/Canadian army groups and take Paris back that it made the Battle of the Bulge seem much more important then the overlooked Hurtgen forset nightmare. History makes the Battle of the Bulge look so much more important that the Hurtgen forest is often overlooked. I dont know how many men actually fought in the Hurtgen forest as I have never read where they give any idea. Myself I would love to read/learn more about the Hurtgen forest fight. Ron
I dont know how many men actually fought in the Hurtgen forest as I have never read where they give any idea. Myself I would love to read/learn more about the Hurtgen forest fight. Ron
I wasn't even aware of the battle until some 25 years ago when I had the opportunity to interview a Medal of Honor recipient who fought there. Some 120,000 American forces of the 1st, 4th, 8th, 9th, 28th, 3rd Armored, 78th and the 83rd were committed to the battle against 80,000 well dug in Germans. The U.S suffered 24,000 casualties to the German's 28,000.
As my oldest son says. "Italy is the most successful country in history at losing wars".
They came out of WW2 pretty well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
