The Battle of Kursk was substantially larger than the Battle of the Bulge. Far greater numbers of battle hardened troops were involved and almost 10 times the number of tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
Casualties in Ukraine have always been suspiciously low. Battles in which 10,000 men are killed in a day have been routinely fought for at least 2000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae#Casualties
That's just a flat-out lie. While 10,000 dead in a single day's battle has happened, it isn't anything close to "routine". Depending on sources, you might be able to find 3-4 such instances during all of WW2.
Pre-modern battles like Cannae are far different because you had incredibly high concentrations of forces in a much smaller area, which just doesn't happen in modern warfare.
Yes, but I was looking for a battle more similar in nature - similar size forces with a similar objective - A narrow thrust at a preceived weak point with a drive to the sea to split the enemy force. Hard to get numbers, much smaller than a Kursk, or a Stalingrad. On reflection, perhaps Nordwind is closer in scale to what is going on right now.
Market garden was on a much larger scale, as well, but the same type offensive.
And we know how Market Garden, the Bulge, and Nordwind ended up for the attacking force.
One thing I haven’t heard the ‘experts’ discuss is the relative strength of the forces. I did read one report where the Ukraines claimed that they matched the Russians in strength in the south. Which sounds ok on the surface, but I’ve always been taught that the attacking force needs at least a 3-1, and preferably a 5-1 advantage against a defending force in prepared positions.