`  :::::The emphasis on tactical skill evolved in the west because the higher echelon officers were on trial at Nuremberg, and mostly in jail later, and many surviving officers of lower rank felt the Allies had to be convinced that Soviet Union had to be countered (which was probably true). However how they went about doing this is interesting. These were people incapable of understanding the command culture differences of the British-American forces vs the Wehrmacht. They did however understand how to push the right 'buttons' with the British and Americans. Effects of occupation is already covered elsewhere, but eventually it will also be included in the operations. First things first though o)  :::::Although ``Battle of Kursk`` (and even ``for Kursk`` by Orenstein!) is used by some respected historians (as does Glantz, but not during his US Army days) as a book title, it is still ambiguous. Consider the style guide recommendation that ``Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa)`` However, the Battle of Kursk does no more then the Citadel (which is also well known)! Consider that no combat took place in or around Kursk during this ``battle``. It does not describe where the action took place (in two distinct directions), and it does not represent either side's planning; two German AGs and three Soviet Fronts! It particularly misrepresents the massive defensive lines which were for the most part well outside of the Kursk, and the massive air battle that took place over the sectors of German offensives which were definitely not around Kursk. Using Battle of Kursk is therefore just wrong. In fact although the Wehrmacht name for it is Operation Cittadel, the Russian name for it is Kurskaya duga, which is the Kursk Bulge. However this name is hardly ever used although on the Western front the Battle of Bulge is used all the time although it is neither the name of the German operation or a geographical name, or represents either side's planning! The Kursk Battle (1943) is only used in Soviet historiography to describe the defensive phase of the operations, with the offensive phases being named the Orel and Belgorod-Kharkov offensive operations. As an encyclopedic entry, the article title need not be chosen by the published because it will sell the book, and has to reflect actual name of the event. At no time during the war were the operations that took place on the Kursk bulge known as the ``Battle of Kursk``. Besides, what are my to use for the operation that actually did result in the liberation of Kursk which was a battle for Kursk in the most literal sense? What about the battles of Kursk (area) in 1941? I really dislike using numerals such as 1st battle of Kharkov, or brackets Battle of Kursk (1941).   Yes, of course I will include local counter-attacks within the scope of Barbarossa. However there were few counter-offensives prominent enough to warrant their own sections before Barbarossa ended.  Cheers `