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.
Agreed, especially on Kursk, that was a absolute built to the hilt meat grinder. And the Germans, unlike the previous years operations, went right where the soviets thought they would go. And the soviets were ready.
Africa with its endless open areas is what made me think, before I knew, that the tank battles would be in the thousands on both sides. If I had to guess, before I knew, I would’ve thought Rommel had twice what he had. But good field commanders do not need strength of numbers I suppose.
But at the same time, the vastness of russia is not to be downplayed, it is absolutely legendary. Just ask every single conqueror, outside maybe ghengis khan. But then again, Ghengis did not have to worry about a supply line either 👍