"To compensate a little for the treachery and weakness of my memory, so extreme that it has happened to me more than once to pick up again, as recent and unknown to me, books which I had read carefully a few years before . . . I have adopted the habit for some time now of adding at the end of each book . . . the time I finished reading it and the judgment I have derived of it as a whole, so that this may represent to me at least the sense and general idea I had conceived of the author in reading it." (Montaigne, Book II, Essay 10 (publ. 1580))

Monday, November 24, 2014

Armor and Blood - The Battle of Kursk - The Turning Point of World War II (Dennis E. Showalter, 2013)

". . . Kursk's defining event:  the tank battle at Prokhorovka.  All the elements of myth were at hand.  Prokhorovka offered a head-on, stand-up grapple between the elite troops of the world's best armies, on a three-mile front that left no room for fancy maneuvers or for air and artillery to make much difference.  The drama is heightened by a a familiar image of both sides attacking simultaneously - an encounter battle in the literal sense, suggesting predators in rut.  Like Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, Prokhovoka offered an emotional turning point;  afterward, nothing was ever the same.  Afterward, the tide of war rolled only one way - toward Berlin." 

Wow.  And really, just the word "Kursk" connotes epic; mythic; amazing.  

But I didn't love this book - supposedly lots of new detail (based on recently-opened Russian archives) - but that doesn't guarantee a good story line.  (Or maybe someone with my low level of military know-how is better suited for something like this, which I much enjoyed).  

Still - it was much worth paging through this book.  Reinforced just how truly awesome this particular battle really was (using the word "awe" in its original sense).  Reading the preparations for the battle, and then the day-by-day developments - how could these combatants lock up like this (both at the individual and macro levels), and then somehow sustain the intensity?

Tigers were amazingly effective.  Germans controlling the air for the most part - Stukas doing damage.  But Germany was already grievously over-stretched, while Russia had made great advances since the staggeringly weak (presumably purge-abetted) performance during Barbarossa.  Exhausting, deadly battles all day long; moving and repairing equipment - and shifting formations - and digging in - by night.  Russians dig in their tanks - just the turrets showing - mobility often pointless against Tigers etc. anyway.  Incredible physical demands even considered in isolation from the endless pounding - absolutely amazing what these folks endured.  Psychological demands (if that's the right terminology) perhaps even worse?

Author introduces the key players in both armies - Model, Hoth, Manstein; Vatutin, Khrushchev.  Interesting, but they didn't really come to life.

Despite all the problems - and the incredible setback at Stalingrad - German army came close to pulling off a victory here.  (Though not clear that it would made a big difference given overall trend lines).  Nazis worried about Allied progress in North Africa - and Sicily invasion - going on roughly in parallel with Kursk (as discussed in this just-finished book).  


No comments: