Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(History Channel)   On this day in history, in 1943, the largest tank battle in history came to an end, with the stunning defeat and reversal of fortunes for the Water Tank Empire in favor of the Gas Tanks   (history.com) divider line
    More: Vintage, World War II, German offensive, Operation Barbarossa, early July, Battle of Kursk, Battle of Stalingrad, German lines, site of a 150-mile-wide Soviet pocket  
•       •       •

2724 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2021 at 10:24 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



40 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-07-13 10:28:23 PM  
Da
 
2021-07-13 10:30:14 PM  
We finally got them back for Pearl Harbor!
 
2021-07-13 10:31:42 PM  
It's absolutely fascinating and devastating history, and both governments deserved to lose. It's sort of like the Confederate States of America vs. the Khmer Rouge.
 
2021-07-13 10:35:53 PM  
Sorry, no, the largest tank battle in history ended 80 years ago on the 30th of June.
 
2021-07-13 10:36:07 PM  
cf.geekdo-images.comView Full Size
 
2021-07-13 10:37:57 PM  
my first tank...
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
it killed many green army guys....!
 
2021-07-13 10:42:11 PM  

Grognard: Sorry, no, the largest tank battle in history ended 80 years ago on the 30th of June.


Ummm....basic math says you are not accurate.

Tanks involved Kursk: 6,000 tanks
Tanks involved Brody: 4,050 tanks.
 
2021-07-13 10:47:09 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.
 
2021-07-13 10:54:26 PM  
i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2021-07-13 10:54:51 PM  

jokerscrowbar: [Fark user image image 425x286]
Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.


These ones were a bit more effective:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-13 10:55:06 PM  

Pestifer: It's absolutely fascinating and devastating history, and both governments deserved to lose. It's sort of like the Confederate States of America vs. the Khmer Rouge.


At that particular point in time, the Nazis were a bit more evil than the Soviet government.

A bit.
 
2021-07-13 11:08:42 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-13 11:13:31 PM  

jokerscrowbar: [Fark user image image 425x286]
Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.


They bought them from us, they should know not to trust pre-war American engineering!
 
2021-07-14 12:34:36 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: jokerscrowbar: [Fark user image image 425x286]
Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.

They bought them from us, they should know not to trust pre-war American engineering!


They had British tanks as well, supplied to Russia under Lend Lease.
 
2021-07-14 12:39:23 AM  

WTP 2: my first tank...
[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 355x142]it killed many green army guys....!



Wow. I guess most of us saw a tank. When mine wasn't a tank it was was a boat, with a paper sail held by a paper clip.
 
2021-07-14 1:39:03 AM  
Headbangin' time

SABATON - Ghost Division (Official Lyric Video)
Youtube ICfzQVh3lvs
 
2021-07-14 2:48:27 AM  

Magnus: Grognard: Sorry, no, the largest tank battle in history ended 80 years ago on the 30th of June.

Ummm....basic math says you are not accurate.

Tanks involved Kursk: 6,000 tanks
Tanks involved Brody: 4,050 tanks.

"

So, how many tanks were at Prokhorovka? To be sure, not the common popular figures which range as high as 1,500 tanks in total, according to the 2011 book Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943 by Valeriy Zamulin, a Russian military historian and former staff member at the Prokhorovka State Battlefield Museum.

The actual number was 978 tanks in total-306 German and 672 Soviet, according to Zamulin. As many as 400 Soviet and 80 German tanks were destroyed.

Expanding the battle beyond Prokhorovka, the total number of tanks fielded by the 2nd SS Panzer Corps and the Soviet 5th Guards Tank Army at and near the battle amounted to 1,299, according to a statistical analysis published in 2000 by Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson.

Expanding the number to encompass all of Operation Citadel would include many more tanks. But they were not concentrated and committed in the same numbers as at the Battle of Brody, which hardly anyone has written about.

That's also according to Zamulin and David Glantz, a historian of the Eastern Front and Soviet military. "This, in fact, is the biggest tank battle in World War II," Glantz said regarding the Battle of Brody during a 2007 lecture available via the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center."

So, if you want to argue your case against David Glantz, feel free, please provide sources.
 
2021-07-14 2:55:11 AM  
That said, I don't agree with everything Glantz has to say.  Hitler's Panzers East by R.H.S. Stolfi has been discredited in some ways but his analysis of the logistics of Operation Barbarossa certainly has some compelling points regarding the possibilities the Germans had and opportunities missed.
 
2021-07-14 3:22:09 AM  

Grognard: Sorry, no, the largest tank battle in history ended 80 years ago on the 30th of June.


Well, according to the TFA link, Kursk involved over 6000 tanks, while your link involved only over 4000, so the headline is still correct when considering those 2.
 
2021-07-14 3:43:34 AM  

jokerscrowbar: [Fark user image 425x286]
Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.


They look like crappy soviet copies of Shermans.
That ain't good.
 
2021-07-14 3:45:14 AM  

Smoking GNU: Grognard: Sorry, no, the largest tank battle in history ended 80 years ago on the 30th of June.

Well, according to the TFA link, Kursk involved over 6000 tanks, while your link involved only over 4000, so the headline is still correct when considering those 2.


Yes, Respectfully to you, I submit The Hitler History Channel is false.  These are, after all, the folks who brought us Ancient Aliens.

It's "popular" history which is, sadly, often not particularly well researched history, readily ignoring more modern studies in favor of sensationalism.

I refer you to my subsequent post to the one to which you replied.  I will reiterate that I do not fully agree with everything David Glantz has to say but he is recognized by pretty much all historians of the period as the doyen of the Eastern Front and with good reason.
 
2021-07-14 4:18:31 AM  

Grognard: Smoking GNU: Grognard: Sorry, no, the largest tank battle in history ended 80 years ago on the 30th of June.

Well, according to the TFA link, Kursk involved over 6000 tanks, while your link involved only over 4000, so the headline is still correct when considering those 2.

Yes, Respectfully to you, I submit The Hitler History Channel is false.  These are, after all, the folks who brought us Ancient Aliens.

It's "popular" history which is, sadly, often not particularly well researched history, readily ignoring more modern studies in favor of sensationalism.

I refer you to my subsequent post to the one to which you replied.  I will reiterate that I do not fully agree with everything David Glantz has to say but he is recognized by pretty much all historians of the period as the doyen of the Eastern Front and with good reason.


Fair enough.
 
2021-07-14 4:20:56 AM  

MIRV888: jokerscrowbar: [Fark user image 425x286]
Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.

They look like crappy soviet copies of Shermans.
That ain't good.


Well, it's a M3 Lee, a fully american design, shipped to the USSR with the Lend Lease agreement. It sucked ass.
 
2021-07-14 4:54:06 AM  
At Kursk, the Soviet tanks were essentially the same models they'd started the war with. They were tooling up to produce better machines and had started fielding some like the Su152. The Germans were relying a lot on the brand-new Panther, which was a great tank if you could ignore the fuel leaks, the transmission breaking down and the engine catching fire on a regular basis.
 
2021-07-14 5:07:25 AM  
oh look its a thread where all the Chairborne Rangers will tell all the other Chairborne Rangers that their book on ww2 in the East is better than that other guy's.

still be a fun thread tho. :)

Smoking GNU: Well, it's a M3 Lee, a fully american design, shipped to the USSR with the Lend Lease agreement. It sucked ass.


mid 30s design and hopelessly obsolete by 1943 facing Tigers and Panthers and upgunned Mark IVs. IIRC, it did ok in North Africa tho, as it was mostly facing MkIIs and IIIs with the odd Mk4?

American armor was generally reliable but generally not very lethal to enemy armor nor survivable. Seems like the US didnt care as much about keeping their crews alive as they did at not making them deal with breakdowns right and left. Sort of the inverse of the german approach where the stuff was lethal and survivable as hell but broke down right and left. At least not until the Firefly.
 
2021-07-14 5:21:03 AM  

Father_Jack: oh look its a thread where all the Chairborne Rangers will tell all the other Chairborne Rangers that their book on ww2 in the East is better than that other guy's.

still be a fun thread tho. :)

Smoking GNU: Well, it's a M3 Lee, a fully american design, shipped to the USSR with the Lend Lease agreement. It sucked ass.

mid 30s design and hopelessly obsolete by 1943 facing Tigers and Panthers and upgunned Mark IVs. IIRC, it did ok in North Africa tho, as it was mostly facing MkIIs and IIIs with the odd Mk4?

American armor was generally reliable but generally not very lethal to enemy armor nor survivable. Seems like the US didnt care as much about keeping their crews alive as they did at not making them deal with breakdowns right and left. Sort of the inverse of the german approach where the stuff was lethal and survivable as hell but broke down right and left. At least not until the Firefly.


To be fair, my experience with some tanks may not be accurate, as i'm mostly going on my experience in Warthunder.
 
2021-07-14 5:45:00 AM  

Father_Jack: oh look its a thread where all the Chairborne Rangers will tell all the other Chairborne Rangers that their book on ww2 in the East is better than that other guy's.

still be a fun thread tho. :)

Smoking GNU: Well, it's a M3 Lee, a fully american design, shipped to the USSR with the Lend Lease agreement. It sucked ass.

mid 30s design and hopelessly obsolete by 1943 facing Tigers and Panthers and upgunned Mark IVs. IIRC, it did ok in North Africa tho, as it was mostly facing MkIIs and IIIs with the odd Mk4?

American armor was generally reliable but generally not very lethal to enemy armor nor survivable. Seems like the US didnt care as much about keeping their crews alive as they did at not making them deal with breakdowns right and left. Sort of the inverse of the german approach where the stuff was lethal and survivable as hell but broke down right and left. At least not until the Firefly.


I thought initial American tank doctrine was to use tank destroyers on enemy tanks. Tanks were for attacking infantry and fortifications. That changed as the war progressed.
 
2021-07-14 6:35:43 AM  

dsmith42: I thought initial American tank doctrine was to use tank destroyers on enemy tanks. Tanks were for attacking infantry and fortifications. That changed as the war progressed.


that corresponds to how i understand it too.

my use of the word "armor" just means all those things, not differentiating between tanks and tank destroyers.
 
2021-07-14 7:23:22 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: jokerscrowbar: [Fark user image image 425x286]
Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.

They bought them from us, they should know not to trust pre-war American engineering!


The M3 medium wasn't pre-war. It was designed in 1940 and this is well after the war started for most combatants.

The US Army was very very behind the times and mechanisation was an alien concept. It was set up to deal with Mexican boarder raids and enforcing colonial ambitions and not taking on top tier armies.

The only US military arm that kept up with the times was the Navy.
 
2021-07-14 7:38:10 AM  

Norfolking Chance: DarkSoulNoHope: jokerscrowbar: [Fark user image image 425x286]
Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.

They bought them from us, they should know not to trust pre-war American engineering!

The M3 medium wasn't pre-war. It was designed in 1940 and this is well after the war started for most combatants.

The US Army was very very behind the times and mechanisation was an alien concept. It was set up to deal with Mexican boarder raids and enforcing colonial ambitions and not taking on top tier armies.

The only US military arm that kept up with the times was the Navy.


IIRC, the suspension that the russians used for the T-34 and similar tanks that allowed them to move so speedily compared to just about everything else at the time came from an american inventor that tried to sell the tech to the US army, where the generals it was demonstrated to laughed in his face and told him the whole idea was stupid and no one would needed it. So he sold it to the russians.
 
2021-07-14 7:49:50 AM  

Smoking GNU: IIRC, the suspension that the russians used for the T-34 and similar tanks that allowed them to move so speedily compared to just about everything else at the time came from an american inventor that tried to sell the tech to the US army, where the generals it was demonstrated to laughed in his face and told him the whole idea was stupid and no one would needed it. So he sold it to the russians.


the T34s suspsension was influenced by an american designer, this is true. dont know about the rest of your post's validity but yes - during the 30s some american socialists went to the USSR and tried to "help out" and this was on oe fthem.
 
2021-07-14 8:06:41 AM  

Father_Jack: Smoking GNU: IIRC, the suspension that the russians used for the T-34 and similar tanks that allowed them to move so speedily compared to just about everything else at the time came from an american inventor that tried to sell the tech to the US army, where the generals it was demonstrated to laughed in his face and told him the whole idea was stupid and no one would needed it. So he sold it to the russians.

the T34s suspsension was influenced by an american designer, this is true. dont know about the rest of your post's validity but yes - during the 30s some american socialists went to the USSR and tried to "help out" and this was on oe fthem.


It was a while back that i saw that detail on a History channel program, back when they did actual history, years before they went all hitler all the time.
 
2021-07-14 8:19:38 AM  

Father_Jack: dsmith42: I thought initial American tank doctrine was to use tank destroyers on enemy tanks. Tanks were for attacking infantry and fortifications. That changed as the war progressed.

that corresponds to how i understand it too.

my use of the word "armor" just means all those things, not differentiating between tanks and tank destroyers.


German crew,Czech chassis, Russian gun possibly firing French shells
Purpose - shooting stuff
Classification - Fark knows
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-14 9:12:48 AM  

Smoking GNU: Father_Jack: Smoking GNU: IIRC, the suspension that the russians used for the T-34 and similar tanks that allowed them to move so speedily compared to just about everything else at the time came from an american inventor that tried to sell the tech to the US army, where the generals it was demonstrated to laughed in his face and told him the whole idea was stupid and no one would needed it. So he sold it to the russians.

the T34s suspsension was influenced by an american designer, this is true. dont know about the rest of your post's validity but yes - during the 30s some american socialists went to the USSR and tried to "help out" and this was on oe fthem.

It was a while back that i saw that detail on a History channel program, back when they did actual history, years before they went all hitler all the time.


History channel was great when it actually included history.
 
2021-07-14 9:38:47 AM  

Father_Jack: Smoking GNU: IIRC, the suspension that the russians used for the T-34 and similar tanks that allowed them to move so speedily compared to just about everything else at the time came from an american inventor that tried to sell the tech to the US army, where the generals it was demonstrated to laughed in his face and told him the whole idea was stupid and no one would needed it. So he sold it to the russians.

the T34s suspsension was influenced by an american designer, this is true. dont know about the rest of your post's validity but yes - during the 30s some american socialists went to the USSR and tried to "help out" and this was on oe fthem.


It wasn't just socialists. Fred Koch, the father of the current "Koch Brothers," built oil refineries for Stalin in the USSR. He couldn't build them in the US because his process was already patented by a different firm there and he ended up in court for years. But the USSR didn't recognize foreign patents, so he could build them there without worrying about being sued for patent infringement.
 
2021-07-14 9:56:31 AM  

Smoking GNU: Norfolking Chance: DarkSoulNoHope: jokerscrowbar: [Fark user image image 425x286]
Kursk 1943. These machine were not the greatest tanks to be in a great battle with. The 5 Guard nicknamed them Mass Grave.

They bought them from us, they should know not to trust pre-war American engineering!

The M3 medium wasn't pre-war. It was designed in 1940 and this is well after the war started for most combatants.

The US Army was very very behind the times and mechanisation was an alien concept. It was set up to deal with Mexican boarder raids and enforcing colonial ambitions and not taking on top tier armies.

The only US military arm that kept up with the times was the Navy.

IIRC, the suspension that the russians used for the T-34 and similar tanks that allowed them to move so speedily compared to just about everything else at the time came from an american inventor that tried to sell the tech to the US army, where the generals it was demonstrated to laughed in his face and told him the whole idea was stupid and no one would needed it. So he sold it to the russians.


The suspension for Russian BT and T-34 tanks were based in the Christie suspension by the American inventor J Walter Christie. An upgraded T-34 using torsion bar suspension was developed but the Russians decided it wasn't worth the time to switch over production as the suspension was good enough and reparability and crew comfort was not high on the priority list.

It was a dead end of tank development but during the 30's it was an OK option.
 
2021-07-14 10:09:19 AM  

Pestifer: It's absolutely fascinating and devastating history, and both governments deserved to lose. It's sort of like the Confederate States of America vs. the Khmer Rouge.


There is nothing like getting your ass kicked, and then, putting an imbecile like Semyon Budyonny in charge to ensure a disaster turns into a catastrophe. Hello, destruction of the Kiev Army Group!
 
2021-07-14 11:37:00 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Pestifer: It's absolutely fascinating and devastating history, and both governments deserved to lose. It's sort of like the Confederate States of America vs. the Khmer Rouge.

At that particular point in time, the Nazis were a bit more evil than the Soviet government.

A bit.


It always depends on who you were.  If you were Jewish, obviously Nazis, if you were one of the 8 million Ukrainians killed and starved to death by the Soviets, then the Soviets.
 
2021-07-14 11:01:42 PM  

Smoking GNU: Father_Jack: oh look its a thread where all the Chairborne Rangers will tell all the other Chairborne Rangers that their book on ww2 in the East is better than that other guy's.

still be a fun thread tho. :)

Smoking GNU: Well, it's a M3 Lee, a fully american design, shipped to the USSR with the Lend Lease agreement. It sucked ass.

mid 30s design and hopelessly obsolete by 1943 facing Tigers and Panthers and upgunned Mark IVs. IIRC, it did ok in North Africa tho, as it was mostly facing MkIIs and IIIs with the odd Mk4?

American armor was generally reliable but generally not very lethal to enemy armor nor survivable. Seems like the US didnt care as much about keeping their crews alive as they did at not making them deal with breakdowns right and left. Sort of the inverse of the german approach where the stuff was lethal and survivable as hell but broke down right and left. At least not until the Firefly.

To be fair, my experience with some tanks may not be accurate, as i'm mostly going on my experience in Warthunder.


War Thunder is a lot of fun but it must also be noted that the tank you command is in tip top shape and operating at the perfect (sometimes a little better, sometimes a little worse) specifications of the designers.  There just isn't a good way for them to realistically model things like the dumpster fire that was the Panther D which was followed by the, at least marginally, more reliable Panther A.  That said, always possible we have met in game.  I die a lot.  To a lot of different folks.  I am pretty bad.  Despite that, it's still been a fun experience most of the time.
 
2021-07-15 2:46:40 AM  

Grognard: Smoking GNU: Father_Jack: oh look its a thread where all the Chairborne Rangers will tell all the other Chairborne Rangers that their book on ww2 in the East is better than that other guy's.

still be a fun thread tho. :)

Smoking GNU: Well, it's a M3 Lee, a fully american design, shipped to the USSR with the Lend Lease agreement. It sucked ass.

mid 30s design and hopelessly obsolete by 1943 facing Tigers and Panthers and upgunned Mark IVs. IIRC, it did ok in North Africa tho, as it was mostly facing MkIIs and IIIs with the odd Mk4?

American armor was generally reliable but generally not very lethal to enemy armor nor survivable. Seems like the US didnt care as much about keeping their crews alive as they did at not making them deal with breakdowns right and left. Sort of the inverse of the german approach where the stuff was lethal and survivable as hell but broke down right and left. At least not until the Firefly.

To be fair, my experience with some tanks may not be accurate, as i'm mostly going on my experience in Warthunder.

War Thunder is a lot of fun but it must also be noted that the tank you command is in tip top shape and operating at the perfect (sometimes a little better, sometimes a little worse) specifications of the designers.  There just isn't a good way for them to realistically model things like the dumpster fire that was the Panther D which was followed by the, at least marginally, more reliable Panther A.  That said, always possible we have met in game.  I die a lot.  To a lot of different folks.  I am pretty bad.  Despite that, it's still been a fun experience most of the time.


I really don't like the panthers, their turret traversals are garbage and i always get one-shotted out of nowhere.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.