No.

Maybe?

Not Really.

To begin with, the Battle of Kursk was a major victory for the Soviet Union and the Allies in the War. It also still stands as the largest armored battle in history. It began the slow grinding progress of the Red Army repelling the Wehrmacht from Russia and back to Berlin. However, from all my readings it is usually not considered a turning-point.

When I was taught World War II military history there was three battles that usually were brought up with this idea of a "turning point." The Battle for Midway in the Pacific Theater, D-Day, and in the European theater, The Battle of Stalingrad, not Kursk. There is sometimes the inclusion of the Battle of Britain or the Battle of the Bulge.

If we discard the objection to the idea of a "turning point" and instead focus on if there was one, Stalingrad is usually the one chosen. The reasons being are as follows. The Battle of Stalingrad was where in reality the Wehrmacht got the farthest and closest to its goals. The Battle for Moscow was a valiant defense earlier, but if Stalingrad fell and the path to Central Asia and its vast oil fields were open to Germany, there would be a second Battle for Moscow and the Russians would be on the ropes. Stalingrad became a gate and a lynchpin to Army Group South.

The Red Army held Stalingrad against what seemed like impossible odds. Even when they were pushed into small pockets within the city, the fighting continued. Millions died in the city, both Wehrmacht and Red.

But even looking past the human toll, it was the first time the Red Army initiated a large scale, complicated, and planned counter offensive with Operation Uranus. It cut off the entire German 6th Army and led to the capture of roughly 100,000 men including Field Marshall Paulus.

The reason why this victory and battle was the turning point is because of the scale, the moral victory, and a victory within Soviet hierarchy. Before this Stalin often did not trust his generals and the Stavka. The counter-offense, Uranus, was proof that the Stavka could lead and lead well.

It changed the momentum of the war.

The Battle of Kursk was significant, however it was not a turning point like Stalingrad. Kursk was a huge battle, but by then Stavka had proven itself, the Wehrmacht were not invincible anymore. However, Kursk would definitely not have happened without Stalingrad, and without the victory of Uranus. By the time Kursk happened, Germany was far from out, but they were no longer the clear winners in the war. The tables had already begin to turn at Stalingrad.

It kind of reminds me of the Battle of the Bulge in a way. That yes they were important, significant to the war, battles, but the tables had turned already. It was more a reaction to the turning point, to regain the upper hand after losing it. It was sealing the deal. But not the deal itself.