Would Mannstein's post-Stalingrad plan have worked?

[MarkC1]

After Operation Uranus destroyed 6th Army at Stalingrad, the Russians advanced and retook Kharkov before being repulsed by Mannstein's Army Group in early 1943.

Mannstein wanted to allow the Russians to launch another offensive in the Spring of '43 and organize a fighting withdrawal to a prepared defensive line in response. He would have conserved as much manpower and equipment as possible and then launched a giant pincer on the offensive bulge occupied by the russians.

Hitler dismissed this as too politically risky.

Instead he decided to attack the same Russian forces that were preparing to fall into Mannstein's trap. Hitler continuously delayed the attack against these continually fortified positions and it became a bloodbath.

Afterwards, the Russians did exactly what Mannstein predicted they would do, launch an offensive with units assembled around Kursk. Forces which, I believe, could easily have been encircled and destroyed by Wehrmacht units squandered at Kursk.

Does anyone have any input into this matter?

Spoiler :

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2 europe/ww2 europe war index.htm

 

[warpus]

Operation Uranus heh heh

 

[silver 2039]

It would proabaly have worked and been a massive setback to the Russians, whetehr it would have won the Germans the war is debatable, but if Hitler had left tactical matter up to the generals like Mannstein things would have certainely gone better for Germany.

 

[Serutan]

Interestingly, when the Germans were debating what to do in 1943, Mannstein was conspicuous by his silence on the "Citadel" plan. Guderian was the only prominent general to oppose the plan from the beginning. He did in fact favor letting the Russians attack first. Doing this would have put the Soviet command in an interesting delimma, because their 1943 planning presumed defending against a German attack before going over to a counteroffensive. Model eventually became openly opposed to Citadel because he felt that the delays in launching the attack had given the Russians too much time to prepare. While Mannstein did apparently oppose the plan in private, he never spoke out forcefully against it in public.

 

[MarkC1]

^^ did i get Mannstein confused with Guderian? Was it Guderians plan?

 

[Ace]

No, it was Manstein's plan to let the Russians attack than smash them when they were extented and exposed. Hitler overruled him and wanted to attack first. Manstein went along with that plan, with the launch date in May, but Hitler kept postponing the attack to wait for more Panther tanks. July 1st was way too late and the Germans paid the price for (1) waiting too long and, (2) attacking instead of letting the Russians attack, than counter-attacking them. Guderian did not want to attack at all in 1943, just go on the defensive and let the Russians wear themselves out attacking. He wanted to build up all the panzer divisions to full strenght for a major counter-attack in 1944.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Operation Uranus heh heh

Mannstein should have called it "Urectum," I'm sure the Russians were offended by the name of his Operation.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't think the pun works well in German or Russian.
Unless Uranus is called Ihrarschloch in Germany.

 

[Adler17]

Manstein gave Stalin himself a Stalingrad at Charkow. Shortly after Uranus Stalin wanted to trap Manstein and his army group to give Hitler a super Stalingrad. But because of several circumstances Hitler let Manstein execute his plan: While believing the Germans were withdrawing the Russians got it too late that they were trapped. So Stalin lost entire armies (including the 6th Soviet army) and the advantage of Stalingrad was lost. Now giving the Russians back the initiative would be interesting indeed. The Russians had to make a new plan. Perhaps they waited themselves on the German attack too long. Anyway with the waiting on new fresh tank units Manstein would have been again able to outmanoeuvre Stalin again. He might have got other plans and give Stalin a much harder fight the Germans already did. In the manoeuvre warfare the Germans were able to beat the Russians even if fighting a supremacy. So even in April- May 1945 the Germans were able to retake and hold Bautzen against Polish and Soviet forces.
Would the plan have worked? Well, to be 100% sure: Nobody knows. But Manstein was one of the best German strategians. So the possibility he would have had success would be very high.

Adler

 

[ParkCungHee]

Anything probably would have been better than Hitler bashing his head against the Kursk Salient.

 

[Serutan]

True. But by not lending his voice to the debate on Kursk, Manstein helped bring it about.

 

[rilnator]

I beleive the germans would have had more sucess launching counter attacks against over extended troops than attacking the Kursk salient. However this would have led to a war of attrition ie: withraw, counter attack, withdraw counter attack. At the end of the day Hitler still would have interfered whichevrer plan they chose.

The Russians had to get the Germans off their soil but the Germans more desparatley needed to finish the Russians off so there would be no dreaded second front. With Kursk, Hitler wanted to prove to the world that the Wehrmacht was still a force to be reckoned with.

The Germans needed a devastating victory over the Russians and Kursk offered the chance. Only Hitler didn't realise the Soviets of '43 were a different breed to those 2 years earlier.

 

[Naskra]

Manstein was himself in favor of continuing the "head-bashing" at Kursk until
the Russian armored reserves had been destroyed. The Sicily landings intervened.

 

[Adler17]

Well, this discussion is in vain if we keep that Austrian as factor. He is way too problematic. If Hitler would have heard and let Manstein act it would have been a severe fight for the Russians to come to Berlin. However at some point they might have been successful. But then it would have costed them more men. Many more.
If Hitler however is no longer a factor, as for example von Treskow's bomb detonated, we do have a completely different situation.

Adler

 

[The Gonzo]

I'm sorry, but after Stalingrad there was no possible way that Germany could win on the eastern front. It couldn't be done.

You could argue that the war was essentially decided after the failure to take Moscow, or even before the war began.

 

[Adler17]

Well the operations soon after Stalingrad made the battle success of the Soviets invain. Kursk is another thing though.

Adler

 

[Zardnaar]

A fighting withdrawal could have resulted in a Soviet peace treaty of conditions acceptable to the Germans.

I don't think Germany could have won the war as such in 43 or 44. best hope would have been trading territory for time and casualties for the USSR.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Manstein was himself in favor of continuing the "head-bashing" at Kursk until
the Russian armored reserves had been destroyed. The Sicily landings intervened.

The Sicily landings didn't change the fact that it was a terribly planned operation. The Idea was to attack the enemy right where he was strongest, and had spent the most time preparing.

 

[aelf]

The Sicily landings didn't change the fact that it was a terribly planned operation. The Idea was to attack the enemy right where he was strongest, and had spent the most time preparing.

Wasn't something like that a famous gambit by Rommel? Well, it did work for him.

 

[sabo]

The scary thing is that Germany could have quite possible won WWII or at least have an agreeable ceasefire with the west where he was able to keep Russia had Hitler not meddled where he didn't belong. He should have let his Generals have free reign in the campaign but lucky for us he didn't