Just for fun, cause I love history, and please do not take this as criticism or anything of the like, as I do not mean it in that manner at all. A quick look at Kursk and the Bulge, both fights over a salient. One eastern front one western.
Kursk
6,000 tanks
2 million men
Bulge
840 tanks
280,000 men
The fighting on the eastern front was on a different scale than anywhere else in WWII.
How many of the Russian tanks were lend-lease American tanks?
I said in my post the tank battles of North Africa, the Italian Campaign , and Normandy.
I know what transpired on the Eastern Front. It was horrific. A war between two scorpions in a bottle.
I didn’t mean to single out The Bulge as bigger that Kursk although The Bulge was a month and a half of a a hellish fight.
Size is more than numbers of tanks. Kursk was not even like a war of maneuver. It was like a World War I battle in that the offensive was telegraphed, it made slow and limited progress in mileage, and it trapped both sides in a meat grinder.
Stalingrad is never called a tank battle but it was a classic tank battle in that the Red Army launched a surprise attack that encircled the Germans, the Germans launched a counter attack to break the encirclement, and the Red Army defeated it.
In terms of decisiveness and distances covered, one cannot dismiss the desert battles just because the raw numbers of tanks were limited. The logistical difficulties both sides had maintaining armored forces in North Africa limited the size of the forces.