* * *
The battle for a large Soviet-held salient around the Russian city of Kursk in the long German-Soviet line in July 1943 is remembered chiefly for being the biggest tank battle in history. The decisive intervention of General Pavel Rotmistrov’s 5th Guards Tank Army in the famous Battle of Prokhorovka on 12 July, it was claimed, saved the Red Army from imminent disaster at the end of a week of gruelling combat. Western historians’ scepticism about this account has promoted a rival version of events. Hitler’s decision to cancel the German offensive, they have argued, should instead be attributed to the timely invasion of southern Sicily by British and American forces, which began on 9 July at the height of the Battle of Kursk. Neither of these explanations withstands close examination. This was a nick of time that never was. Soviet victory came from careful planning, a sound defensive field and the massing of a surprising quantity of key reserves.
The battle was the result of a German attempt to stabilize the long front line after the disastrous retreat from Stalingrad, perhaps even to create the conditions, in summer campaigning weather, which the Germans preferred, for a more adventurous set of operations. The key was thought to be the Kursk salient that jutted out for 100 kilometres (60 miles) into the German line. Field Marshal Erich von Manstein drew up a plan codenamed ‘Citadel’, the purpose of which was to attack the neck of the salient from south and north with heavy armour and air forces in order to cut off the large Soviet forces bottled up in the bulge. He wanted to attack in April or May before the Red Army had time to dig in, but Hitler was more cautious, keen to await new tank supplies and to avoid any risk of a further disaster. In the end the delays postponed the opening of ‘Citadel’ until 5 July when over 750,000 soldiers, 2,450 tanks, 1,830 aircraft and 7,420 heavy artillery pieces were positioned north and south of the Kursk bulge.
This image taken in winter 2013 at the Russian memorial near the village of Prokhorovka shows some of the tanks that participated in the Battle of Kursk on 12 July 1943. Recent research has suggested that the celebrated clash of 700 tanks never took place.
The Soviet leadership had suffered from two years of wrong guesses about German intentions, from the invasion in June 1941 to the southern offensive towards Stalingrad in 1942. This time, thanks to better intelligence, much of it supplied from British Ultra intercepts of German messages, they guessed correctly. Stalin’s deputy supreme commander, General Georgy Zhukov, organized a complex defensive field around the perimeter of the Kursk salient. There were six layers of defence, each one bristling with tank traps, artillery, batteries and machine-gun nests; 5,000 kilometres (3,000 miles) of trenches were dug in a criss-cross pattern, allowing the defenders to move easily from one firing position to another. Over 400,000 mines were laid, and streams were dammed so that water could be released around oncoming tanks. Fifty dummy airfields were built to attract enemy planes. Into this obstacle course Zhukov placed seven armies, a total of 1,336,000 men (and some women), 3,440 tanks and self-propelled guns, 19,100 artillery pieces and 2,170 aircraft. About 250 kilometres (150 miles) further back was the reserve Steppe Front commanded by General Ivan Konev with another 500,000 men and 1,400 tanks, ready to strike at the right moment. The battle for the Kursk salient was the largest set-piece battle of the Second World War. If Manstein had succeeded in cutting the salient, 40 per cent of Red Army manpower and 75 per cent of Soviet armour would have been trapped.
There followed weeks of waiting for the Germans to come. Hitler hesitated until he was confident that the armies had what they needed, including a small number of the new heavy Panther and Tiger tanks. For Soviet soldiers, the suspense was enervating. Finally a captured German soldier confessed that the morning of 5 July was the start date. The Red Army fired off a spoiling bombardment in the middle of the night, alarming German commanders, who briefly thought they were the victims of an unanticipated Soviet offensive. Things were again quiet until, at 4.30 a.m., Field Marshal Walter Model’s 9th Panzer Army in the north and General Hermann Hoth’s 4th Panzer Army in the south, supported by three armoured divisions of Army Detachment Kempf, plunged into the lines of fixed defences.
A line of Soviet armour is on its way to reinforce the Red Army during the Battle of Kursk in July 1943. The arrival of reinforcements in time has often been seen as a critical turning point in the battle. In fact Hitler ended the attack because of a massive Soviet counter-offensive.
The battle was on an extraordinary scale, with thousands of guns, aircraft and tanks pulverizing the ground, tearing apart the woods and villages in their path. A pall of acrid smoke obscured much of the battlefield. Model’s armoured divisions made very slow progress against determined opposition, facing the worst field of fire they had yet experienced. They moved 6 kilometres (4 miles) on the first day and a further 11 kilometres (7 miles) by 7 July, subjected to continuous attacks. The limit of the advance was reached two days later. In the south, Hoth had greater success because the defensive forces were weaker than further north. Spearheaded by the three notorious SS panzer divisions – Totenkopf, Das Reich and Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler – the southern assault penetrated 32 kilometres (20 miles) by 7 July with the aim of cutting the main road to Kursk. It was halted by a strong counter-attack. On 9 July, the tank divisions grouped for one more thrust but were held as they were in the north. Hoth ordered the tanks to move northeast, towards a small rail junction at Prokhorovka.
The Soviet account of Kursk needed a hero suitable for the regular propaganda that exalted the bravery of Soviet men and women in the face of fascist aggression. The hero of this battle was General Pavel Rotmistrov, commander of the 5th Guards Tank Army, held back with Konev’s reserves. On 9 July, he was ordered to move forward to join the main battle and on 12 July, his tanks clashed with the approaching German panzer divisions in what was hailed as the greatest tank battle of the war. At the end of the day the German assault was blunted and, so it was claimed, over 700 tanks littered the battlefield, their burning hulks a testament to the bitterness of the conflict and the triumph of Rotmistrov’s men. The legend, however, has been overturned by modern research. There was only one German panzer division at Prokhorovka, the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, with around 100 tanks, faced by two Soviet Tank Corps with 421 tanks and self-propelled guns. Charging forward, the Soviet tanks fell into one of the tank traps built by their own side, where many were damaged or destroyed. At the end of the day, the German force had lost only 32 tanks, the Soviet side 259.
Nevertheless, the overturning of the myth of Prokhorovka has done little to undermine the broader story of Soviet success in blunting the power of the fifteen panzer divisions hurled at the Kursk lines. If the great tank battle is an invention, the defence held firm and inflicted heavy losses on the attacker. What did happen on 12 July was a massive counter-offensive codenamed Operation Kutuzov mounted against the northern wing of the German attack. Not suspecting that there were reserves available, the counter-attack stunned the German command. The following day, Hitler, already anxious about the invasion of Sicily, for which forces would have to be moved from the Eastern Front, cancelled Citadel and ordered Hoth back to the German starting lines. On 3 August, a second Soviet offensive using the reserve armies, Operation Rumyantsev, smashed into the southern German line. The unleashing of the reserves after a week of battle stopped the last German offensive in its tracks. No legend of last-minute reinforcement was needed to embellish a comprehensive victory. The gleeful debunking of the Prokhorovka story cannot conceal the reality of Soviet success.
* * *
No. 99 BATTLE OF DIEN BIEN PHU
13 March – 7 May 1954
* * *
The first Vietnam War, between the communist Viet Minh and French colonial forces, was waged for almost ten years following Japanese defeat in 1945, and has been overshadowed by the subsequent conflict with the American-sponsored south. Yet it was a long and savage war that ended in a catastrophic defeat for the French in the valley of Dien Bien Phu in the far north of
Vietnam. For the communist Viet Minh timing was everything. As the battle raged, so the major powers were trying to broker a peace conference. Victory for the Viet Minh would make independence difficult to deny. The French at Dien Bien Phu surrendered on 7 May, the day before the French foreign minister, Georges Bidault, stood up at Geneva to begin discussions about the future of Vietnam. The timing was not accidental. The Viet Minh knew that they had to end the battle in time if their victory was to weigh anything in the scales of the negotiations. Military success and political hopes rose or fell together.
The communist insurgency led by Ho Chi Minh dominated much of northern Vietnam by 1953, confining the French colonial forces to the defence of the Red River delta around Hanoi. In the summer of that year a new French commander, General Henri Navarre, took control of operations. Navarre was determined to hold the line in Vietnam and, if possible, impose a crushing defeat on Ho’s growing army, which was being reinforced with Chinese advisers and equipment. The Navarre Plan (Operation Castor) was to establish a heavily defended encampment in the valley of Dien Bien Phu in northern Tonkin that would cut off Viet Minh infiltration into Laos and inflict heavy punishment on an enemy force thought to be only 10-15,000 strong. The base was set up from late November 1953 under command of Colonel Christian de la Croix de Castries and was manned by 10,800 French and colonial troops, including newly trained Vietnamese, and supported by a corps of non-combatant workers. The main defensive zone was established around the airstrip, with smaller redoubts a mile or so away. Each was given a female name: ‘Isabelle’, ‘Ann Marie’, ‘Gabrielle’ and ‘Beatrice’; the main camp had five more, named, it was rumoured, after de Castries’ mistresses.
Under the guard of communist Viet Minh troops, French and Vietnamese prisoners of war march from the battlefields of Dien Bien Phu in May 1954. The battle accelerated the French decision to abandon Indo-China.
The Viet Minh observed the French move and were determined to respond. The overall commander, General Vo Nguyen Giap, gathered four divisions of more than 50,000 soldiers and extensive supplies. By the time the French camp was besieged he had 100 artillery pieces, including 75-milimetre and 105-milimetre howitzers. The plan, encouraged by Chinese advisers, was to attack in a fierce wave assault on 25 January 1954, but Giap hesitated until all the preparations were complete. The valley was barren and the Viet Minh needed proper trenches and dugouts, while the artillery needed to be dug into the stony ground and protected from attack. Giap preferred the strategy of ‘steady attack, steady advance’ to the Chinese preference for an overwhelming storming operation. Just before the final offensive, commando groups of Viet Minh destroyed French aircraft at their bases in the delta, slowing down the airborne supply programme. By 13 March, Giap was ready and an artillery barrage began that wrecked the airstrip and churned up the French trenches and bunkers, smothering soldiers under earth and rubble. ‘Beatrice’ was overrun on the first day, Ann Marie’ and ‘Gabrielle’ two days later. French artillery could do so little that the artillery commander, Colonel Charles Piroth, committed suicide using a grenade clutched to his chest.
Conditions for both sides were appalling. The Viet Minh took high casualties, losing 4,000 dead by early April, while suffering from chronic shortages of food and ammunition. For the French and colonial defenders, conditions were even worse. Trenches filled with up to a metre of water and food rations had to be halved. For alcohol they relied on vinogel, a jelly-like wine concentrate to which water – a rapidly shrinking resource – had to be added. Hospital conditions were primitive and the number of wounded very high under the constant bombardment and sniper fire. By mid-April, there were only 2,400 fit combat troops left, although 4,300 had been parachuted in during the siege. Some soldiers and workers hid early in the battle in abandoned trenches, living off supply drops that fell outside the embattled centre. In the end, the Rats of Nam Youm, as they were called, numbered 4,000.
Bit by bit, the garrison was worn down and metre by metre the Viet Minh tunnels and trenches drew closer. Giap called for a strategy of ‘nibbling away’ at the enemy instead of any further frontal assaults, but the onset of talks in Geneva in late April made a more concerted drive necessary. De Castries sent out urgent messages to the headquarters in Hanoi for reinforcement or American aircraft, but there was little to be done for such a remote area. The US government of Dwight D. Eisenhower considered the possibility of direct military help but did nothing before the end, which came in a sudden, fierce final battle launched on 1 May. One after another the defensive zones fell. De Castries toyed with the idea of breaking out – an operation unfortunately codenamed Albatross’ – but in the end decided to stay with his men and fight to a standstill. On 7 May, his command bunker was captured and he was taken prisoner together with a further 10,000 French, Vietnamese and colonial personnel, most of them non-combatants or those who had opted not to fight. Some 3,500 French and colonial soldiers died in the siege; thousands more were wounded and died on the forced march to Viet Minh holding camps.
The defence of Dien Bien Phu was a gamble, whose odds were not understood by the French. The Viet Minh were not old-style anti-colonial rebels, but a nationalist army equipped with modern weaponry. This was the first time that an Asian force had defeated a European force in pitched battle. After the Geneva talks, a northern Democratic Republic of Vietnam was set up under Ho Chi Minh and a southern Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem. Giap’s last offensive against the remnants of De Castries’ garrison tipped the balance at Geneva against any solution short of partition and French withdrawal. The Second Vietnam War was still in the future.
* * *
No. 100 BATTLE FOR THE FALKLANDS
21 May – 14 June 1982
* * *
Time mattered a great deal in the British operation to recapture the Falkland Islands (the Islas Malvinas in Spanish), the South Atlantic colony occupied by Argentine forces on 2 April 1982. The campaign had to be conducted quickly before international pressure for a diplomatic solution became decisive; it had to be carried out before the harsh winter weather made operations impossible; it had to be a swift campaign because men and equipment could not easily be replenished thousands of miles from the homeland. In the end, an operation could only be launched with any chance of success in a ten-day period at the end of May. Any longer delay and the men would have to return to land. Timing proved to be everything in the eventual British victory.
The Argentine invasion, codenamed Operation Rosario, was part of a long-running dispute between the two countries over sovereignty of the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The issue was revived late in 1981 by the military government of Argentina led by General Leopoldo Galtieri. The object was to apply diplomatic pressure to compel Britain to abandon the territories and to prepare for a military showdown if negotiations stalled. In Buenos Aires, it was not clear how determined Britain might be to hold on to the Falklands and growing frustration with the onset of talks finally prompted the military junta on 26 March 1982 to order an invasion. The islands had a small Royal Marine force, but resistance was pointless as almost 3,000 Argentine troops disembarked at the capital, Port Stanley. That same evening the British cabinet decided to send a naval task force, complete with aircraft carriers and a body of troops, to the South Atlantic. Britain had not yet ruled out a diplomatic solution and many overseas observers assumed that the task force was no more than a show of strength. To invade distant islands in an inhospitable climate was, a United States navy spokesman claimed, ‘a military impossibility’.
Royal Marines from 40 Commando wait for transport from the deck of the British aircraft carrier Hermes during the 24-day struggle to recapture the Falkland Islands from Argentine invaders. The timing of the operation was critical because British forces could sustain a major campaign for only a short time.
There followed weeks of shuttle diplomacy as the United Nations Secretary-General and the United States State Department tried to broker a deal between the tw
o parties. Naval and air conflict had already begun, including the sinking of the Argentine troopship General Belgrano on 2 May. The critical issue for Britain was the withdrawal of the Argentine garrison on the Falklands, and by mid-May it was evident that the Argentine regime would not accept the condition. On 19 May, the cabinet of Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister, agreed to the launch of Operation Sutton, the reconquest of the islands. Feints and false intelligence were used to persuade the Argentinian commander on the islands, Brigadier General Mario Menendez, that the British would try to land close to Port Stanley, which is where the bulk of the 10,000-strong Argentine army was dug in, facing south and east. Instead the British Task Force delivered the 3,000 men of 3 Commando Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Julian Thompson, together with thousands of tons of stores and equipment, to the western shore of East Falkland at San Carlos, 80 kilometres (50 miles) to the west of Port Stanley. The bridgehead was rapidly consolidated, helped by uncertainty among the Argentine high command about whether the San Carlos landing was only a diversion. Despite repeated attacks by the Argentine air force flying from the mainland, in one of which the storeship Atlantic Conveyor was hit and burnt out, the small contingent of 42 Harrier fighters inflicted substantial losses on enemy aircraft, most of which were kept back from the conflict in case of an air assault on Argentina itself.
Speed was essential for Operation Sutton because resupply was difficult and there was constant diplomatic activity to try to prevent further escalation. After a week ashore, there was pressure from London to begin the assault on Port Stanley, but Thompson was anxious to wait for further reinforcements (the 5th Infantry Brigade of 5,000 men was on its way) and was aware that on the British right flank there was an Argentine base at Goose Green/Darwin. On 28 May, 600 men of the 2 Battalion Parachute Regiment advanced to the base and after fierce fighting, in which their commander, Lieutenant Colonel Herbert ‘H’ Jones, was killed, over 900 Argentinian troops were taken prisoner. The British moved forward across the island to take Mount Kent, the highest point in the circle of mountains around the capital. The Argentine chiefs-of-staff realized that an attack was imminent but offered no immediate reinforcements to Menendez, who was becoming increasingly demoralized at the prospect of maintaining the Argentine occupation. The forces at his command were a mix of regular soldiers, commandos and conscript troops, whose capacity to withstand the harsh conditions of mud, rain and cold while facing Britain’s regular soldiers was evidently limited. Instead of sending out units to delay or obstruct the British advance, he ordered his forces to high alert around the capital and waited on events.
A History of War in 100 Battles Page 43
