Is the Kursk campaign viable?

[Elxaime]

I have often wondered about that. Here the Germans are, deep in Russia, arguably putting into the Kursk offensive their last significant reserves of men and materiel. And yet, in an attrition battle with the Soviets they will win. Why? Because in the stock scenario German units recover four times faster. This of course is not just fatigue, but men, tanks, guns.

As far as tanks, you can argue that the German tank recovery teams were good. But more than four times better than the Soviets? At a time when many believed that Soviet armor, which was simplified in design and in particular had less teething problems compared to the newer German tanks, were noted for their durability and ease of repair?

On infantry and guns, the argument I assume is that the higher recovery rates reflect better unit organization, medical services, and supply services for the Germans. I am not sure that would be the case at this point in the war, particularly as the Germans were at the end of a thousand mile supply system that was under constant partisan attack.

This was, I believe, another aspect of the design where it was deemed required for play balance that a German player, punching along the historic axis of advance into the teeth of constantly arriving Soviet reinforcements, needed a higher recovery rate to keep going. However, as it stands in the stock scenario, the German who wants an easy win will never attack as historically and the higher recovery rates mean he can also win a battle of attrition, at least in the south.