WI: Rommel's defensive strategy for the Soviet Union had been enacted?

kursk wasn't just about physical losses of men and armored vehicles, it was about concentration and consumption of irreplaceable resources; namely all of the striking power of the german army was concentrated in two small places whilst the russians didn't have to weaken other fronts to amass their superior striking power in those places

I don't have numbers handy but Soviets also concentrated most of their best forces around Kursk (I think something like 70% of their tank forces) as well. They could afford to because Kursk was an obvious target and they knew Germans plan to attack there and Germans could only strike at one area. Soviets did "weaken" other parts of the front, but as I said they could.
 
I'd go further than that. The whole praise for German defensive tactics on the East is based on one sided German accounts inflated by US Army tactical studies. Mobile defence is dangerous because it assumes you can outmanouver your opponent.

Well, it's based on few examples where conditions were just right for Germans to do what they did. They were still a good example of capitalizing on your advantages but were just that, examples, rather than standard outcome.
 
polar star, mars, 2nd kharkov, 3rd kharkov and east prussia 44 were one sided battles though. the soviets got chewed up by german defenses with 6-10 to 1 losses in these battles

Except last case those were at the time when Soviets were still learning and when germans held several advantages. Plus Polar Star and Mars were against well defended positions along predictable routes, something that wouldn't happen later.
 
This timeline assumes that Hitler died in the early 43 attempted plane bombing and the new leadership in Germany is willing to play defense in the East. Had things gone worse for Stalin in 1943 and there was a new leadership in Berlin willing to accept peace with him unlike Hitler it might have happened in late 1943. Stalin was somewhat willing to consider peace with Hitler himself in 1943, its simply that Hitler would rather eat a bullet then make peace with him at that point.

As a relevant aside - who's likely to take over in March 1943 if the Cognac Bottle bombing succeeds? Is a rapid and stable junta of generals / Field Marshals possible, or do you get a minor civil war as the various senior Nazis fight it out for the prize?
 
Top