Which was more effective at stopping the German war machine? Kursk or Stalingrad

[Rommel]

After Stalingrad the Germans had been able to a stalemate against the Soviets and continued to have many victories against them. However, after Kursk with a large number of new and old vehicles destroyed the Germans had to retreat for many reasons. 1. Supply lines became slower. 2. Pure numbers. 3. Both battles saw large casualties for both sides.

 

[Shaby]

IMHO it was Stalingrad.

The entire campaign of Fall Blau resulted in over a million casualties for the Germans and over 2 million for the Soviets (1,1 million KIA/MIA) which was much more than the losses at Kursk. Only tank figures may be comparable for the Germans, while losses in men were totally out of proportion.

One other thing that was totally out of proportion was the psychological and moral impact on the Germans from which they never totally recovered.

 

[aktarian]

Stalingrad. It wiped out one army and part of another one. It seriously mauled German satellites and caused massive casualties.

as for psychological impact, Kursk was first time Soviets stopped Germans at tactical depth and first tiem they stopped summer gerans.

 

[Beedok]

The Germans seem to have already been back peddling by Kursk. Stalingrad was stopping them, Kursk was ensuring breaking them would be quicker.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The Germans seem to have already been back peddling by Kursk. Stalingrad was stopping them, Kursk was ensuring breaking them would be quicker.

Indeed.

Stalingrad was where they were STOPPED, Kursk was the point where defeat was inevitable, and the retreating couldn't be undone.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Yeah the Germans had lost by the time of Kursk; arguably there was still the ability to negotiate before the Stalingrad defeat, by which I mean before they had to fight street to street. Operation Uranus was the beginning of the end for Hitler.