@donallen8414
This is a good overview of that battle as of 2024. There's also a 1662 page book. "Kursk: The Battle of Prokhorovka" by Christopher A. Lawrence. Another one is by Osprey: "The Panzers of Prokhorovka: The Myth of Hitler’s Greatest Armoured Defeat". All modern book agree with what you present here. At the National Archiv in College Park, Maryland are the original air recon photos of the Luftwaffe. They are from the days after the battle, and show the exact location of each tank wreck in Provkhorovka.
@bogdangiurgiu7933
Dr. Roman Toppel's analysis: The truth about the largest and most important tank battle of the Second World War (what real losses the combatants suffered and not myths from history books or Wikipedia) Prokhorovka, 12.07.1943 Battle of the Nazi offensive to eliminate the Soviet armies in the area of the Kursk Salient Opposing Forces: Germany - SS division "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler" with 67 armored vehicles of which: 4 Tiger I tanks, 7 command tanks, 4 "Panzer II" tanks, 20 Marder III tank destroyers, 10 StuG III assault guns, the rest being mostly Sdkfz (semi-tracked troop transport vehicles), and very few "Panzer IV G" and "Panzer III" type tanks. - SS division "Das Reich" with 68 armored vehicles of which: 1 Tiger I, 8 T 34 (yes, yes, the famous Soviet tank!), 12 Marder III, 21 StuG III, a few command tanks, the rest being mostly Sdkfz (semi-tracked troop transport vehicles), and very few type "Panzer IV G" and "Panzer III". - SS division "Totenkopf" with 101 operational armored vehicles, of which: 7 command tanks, 10 "Tiger I" , 21 StuG III, 11 Marder III, the rest being mostly Sdkfz (semi-tracked troop transport vehicles), and very few "Panzer IV G" and "Panzer III". USSR - The Soviet Army, the 5th Tank Guard, which had approx. 850 tanks (of which a maximum of 500 took part in the actual battle), composed of: 501 T34-76mm, 261 T 70 A, 35 "Churchill", 40 SU 122 and SU 76 tank destroyers, plus some KV1 tanks. Total, irrecoverable losses: Germans - 5 tanks (LSAH - 4 "Panzer IV G" and Das Reich - 1 "Panzer III") Russians - 196 tanks (most being T 70, Churchill, SU 122 / SU 76 and KV1)
@jasonmussett2129
Rotmistrov had a job explaining to Stalin why he lost so many tanks. He narrowly escaped the firing squad.
@vladimpaler3498
Russians had the same problem the US did; seeing a Panzer IV with Schuzen armor and thinking it was a Tiger. Particularly the turret. From the side, at distance, the Schurzen armor on a Panzer IV looks almost exactly like a Tiger tank turret.
@billballbuster7186
This account does not surprise me, being a tank enthusiast I have often noted a huge discrepancy in the way tank losses are reported and the way memoires are often misleading and self serving. I like to use Goodwood as an example, the Germans claimed over 500 British tank losses, a figure still often quoted. The British End Of Day Reports state 323 tanks not with their units. Further investigation reveals only 131 tanks were write-offs, the remainder needed repair and were soon back in service or were lost and returned to their unit the next day. In contrast German losses are all write-offs but some not reported until days later, so actual tanks lose at Goodwood were 131 British and 109 German compared to 500 British and 76 German reported at the time.
@RussianThunderrr
-- Thank you - for another good historic attempt to get "the record" strait!
@rsrocket1
Wow, thank you for this video! I had forgotten that I read "The Tigers are Burning" a long time ago in the 1970's. Like many WW2 historical accounts, modern investigations reveal the myths of earlier accounts. Whether or not Prokhorovka was the greatest tank battle or not, it was a significant encounter of lots of armor. I would argue that 1941 encounters were more "road kill" than pitched battles where the outcome was in question. The kill to loss ratio at the beginning of Barbarossa was as high as 30:1 according to the book "Stalin's War" by Sean McMeekin so the outcome of the 1941 encounters were never in doubt. Having all the cards stacked against the Germans, Kursk should have been an El Alamein style overwhelming victory for the Soviets but they still lost far more than they should have due to inferior weapons and poor "sledgehammer" leadership. Despite their "superiority", the Germans should have realized if they can't win with kill ratios of 30:1 down to 3:1, they had no business taking on the USSR and only a fool would have tried.
@drbomdaydayboms4890
Fun fact. the reason the allies had the ideer germany had so many tigers was cuz many mistaken the Panzer 4 as a Tiger 1.
@rogercude1459
At the end of the day, Which Side had to Give up and Withdraw leaving a lot of irreplaceable equipment on the battlefield, half the Ferdinands were lost, more panthers broken down than were fighting, yes the tigers did well but not enough of them to influence the battle when up against vastly superior numbers of T34s which were being produced in a matter of hours not weeks as a tiger.
@rowdied9829
You are missing another great book that deals with this, Kursk 1943: the Greatest Battle of the Second World War by Roman Toeppel
@ernestcote3398
~8:33, "the grip that the tiger had on Soviet imagination". Experienced from where? I thought Operation Citadel was postponed UNTIL the tiger was available. Actual first time use of Tigers in battle was the end of August 42 and they suffered mightily in the poor and overly wet terrain, claimed no kills and twice the four existing Tigers had to be recovered (only the first time, one was lost permanently) so again, where did the Russians learn to fear the Tiger?
@HvH909
Nicely done.
@Gort-zs5ph
Outstanding show for those of us who love history, especially history absent propaganda, and agendas unseen. Thank you.
@feltwedge
The Soviets exaggerated the number of Tiger I tanks to make themselves look better on account of the losses they suffered. German total write-offs from the battle that day were 5 or 6. The Soviets lost a few hundred, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 300. Stalin was initially very pissed on account of the fact that the 5th Tanks Army was basically rendered combat ineffective. And the Germans held the field of battle for a few days afterwards facilitating recovery of damaged tanks while preventing the Soviets from doing the same. However, the Germans lost the battle of logistics as the Soviets had nearly unlimited reserves and their industry produced about 1300 T34s per month in that year. Roman Toppel has written the best book on Kursk in my amateur opinion.
@janmale7767
I always knew it was a lie ! The Germans were tactically superior right up to the end,but eventually defeated by the attrition caused by the ever increasing allied war effort swamped by vastly superior numbers in men and materials! German marshall skills are on another level! Brilliant ,that is why many of their actions are studied in great detail at Military academies!
@evilfingersNo1
Regardless what's being said in this doc, the outcome of the Battle of Kursk still remains the same...the Germans lost.
@chuckliebenauer3656
Colonel David Glantz (retired) has many detailed books on this and the rest of the east front actions. He was allowed into the Soviet archives and got to read/copy a lot of their information. He was fluent in Russian and reading Russian. His books are a must read to understand what happened.
@wanjohikuria6715
wait, i also do not understand how LAH did not have any panther tank at the battle of prokhorovka, because all accounts then must be very inaccurate including the one i have read that have been cited in almost evey book on the battle of kursk that i have read. SS Obersturmfuhrer Rudolf Von Ribbentrop said that he was riding on the hatch of his panther tank drinking some coffee in the morning at prokharovka when he saw a purple flare, their code sign for a tank attack, and he saw dozens of t34 at full speed towards him, and they engaged them etc etc etc. i would also take it that LAH had not a single panther tank at that moment of the battle.
@Herschel-kk6wr
A significant point ignored. A German defeat? No. They were ordered to break off the battle and pull out. In the early 80s I interviewed two Germans who crewed tanks at Kursk. Both scoffed at the myth of crushing defeat, and the great Soviet counter attack. The Germans were well aware the Russians knew they were going to attack. They broadcast it over loudspeakers toward German lines. So much for the "surprise attack" myth. The intent was not territory, but to draw out and destroy the Soviet armor reserve. According to the same figures, cited in this video, German tank losses were sustainable. Soviet losses were not, and they were within 48 hours of total collapse. The Soviet attempt to follow German forces cost them heavily in more losses.
@nofear2trek