Stalingrad

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Re: Stalingrad

Post by Qvist » 24 Mar 2009 16:01

6th Army (and Heeresgruppe Süd generally) was in much better condition at the start of the campaigning season than was the case for the Ostheer at large. Several of its divisions were fresh to the East, having arrived during the spring and also these armies were prioritised for replacements during the spring and were rebuilt to high levels. Fighting off the the Izyum offensive did its part, but if I recall correctly only some elements of 6th Army was involved in this. The depleted condition upon arrival in Stalingrad was fundamentally a result of the very, very high losses they suffered in July and August, during the advance to the city. This for some reason is frequently depicted as a bit of a cakewalk, with emphasis on the soviet forces withdrawing rather than standing to fight, but the casualties of both sides fundamentally contradict this depiction.

cheers

randwick
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 23 May 2006 22:08
Location: randwick

Re: Stalingrad

Post by randwick » 25 Mar 2009 06:42

.
That's the impression I had too ,

there was some fighting at the last crossing , the chir if my memory serve me right ,
but before hand the fighting was described as ,
" hitting some dug in soviet position in the afternoon and in the morning they would be gone to another one behind "

.

vszulc
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 05:27

Re: Stalingrad

Post by vszulc » 27 Mar 2009 23:47

crh19792000 wrote:The biggest thing I can never understand is why Hitler decided to commit his forces to Stalingrad. There was no value at all in capturing the city.


There were lot's of good reasons to take it. By controlling Stalingrad, Germany could have cut off rail and river traffic, effectivly cutting the Soviet Union in two, and preventing the Soviet Union access to it's oilfields in Kaukasus.

Also: What would have the alternative been for the 6th army. Sleep on the steppe? The army needed a place to spend the winter, rest, refit and so on.

kon
Banned
Posts: 281
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 15:55
Location: Belarus

Re: Stalingrad

Post by kon » 03 Apr 2009 18:14

Stalingrad HA HA HA lol
in books and tv we see,german terrible losses,after Stalingrad Germany could not win war.200 thousand losses and what?Population Germany and Austria 80 millions,in 1944-1945 11 millions pows.
Russians in Stalingrad august-november lost killed and wounded 10 thousand troops every day.They heroically supervised 20 % of a city.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2523
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: Stalingrad - (Verdun On The Volga).

Post by Robert Rojas » 03 Apr 2009 23:48

Greetings to both citizen Kon and the community as a whole. Well sir, in respect to your installment of Friday - April 03, 2009 - 6:14pm, old Uncle Bob is thoroughly mystified over the intended purpose of your "commentary" on this particular topic of interest. From what I can glean from your use of language, you appear to find something necrotically humorous about the wholesale slaughter that transpired during this epic clash of arms. Have I misconstrued or taken something out of its proper context here? A clarification on your part would be greatly appreciated. Well, that's my latest two pfennigs or kopecks worth on this well worn topic of interest - for now anyway. In anycase, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in the hinterlands of the swamps and bogs of White Russia.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :? :idea: :|

kon
Banned
Posts: 281
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 15:55
Location: Belarus

Re: Stalingrad

Post by kon » 04 Apr 2009 00:29

Stalingrad(Волгоград),very important for victory
Image

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Re: Stalingrad

Post by Qvist » 04 Apr 2009 08:43

A map of Eastern Europe. What point is this supposed to make?

cheers

kon
Banned
Posts: 281
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 15:55
Location: Belarus

Re: Stalingrad

Post by kon » 04 Apr 2009 17:32

Stalingrad was little point on map and it was simply city storm, as Breslau or Koenigsberg, anything else

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Stalingrad

Post by bf109 emil » 06 Apr 2009 04:30

vszulc wrote:
crh19792000 wrote:The biggest thing I can never understand is why Hitler decided to commit his forces to Stalingrad. There was no value at all in capturing the city.


There were lot's of good reasons to take it. By controlling Stalingrad, Germany could have cut off rail and river traffic, effectivly cutting the Soviet Union in two, and preventing the Soviet Union access to it's oilfields in Kaukasus.

Also: What would have the alternative been for the 6th army. Sleep on the steppe? The army needed a place to spend the winter, rest, refit and so on.

Once the city was destroyed or bombed to ruble, what was the point...sure maybe rail traffic, but on the east side of the Volga the Wehrmacht where helpless aside from Luftwaffe attacks...but the Volga is a long river and to isolate an army within an already destroyed city without properly securing the banks of the Volga allowed the Soviet army to attack from the North and south...
-I know this isn't a what if thread, but say after the city was basically flattened, the 6th army pulls out, allows either the Romanian army or the Hungarian army to secure the city from a possible Soviet staging ground, and the 6th army, it's armor, etc. secure the Volga and keep an armored reserve to combat a Soviet attempt to cross it? Would this have not prevented Army group south's flanks and allowed it to continue and capture the oilfields? To confine a mobile and powerful army within the confines of a city allowing it to be encircled basically allowed it's death sentence to be served

kon
Banned
Posts: 281
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 15:55
Location: Belarus

Re: Stalingrad

Post by kon » 06 Apr 2009 21:17

Some oil deposits have been grasped by Germans, but Russian had time to blow up chinks. A year would be required as early as to restore there oil extracting. It was easier to crush red army and to win war than to go to Caucasus behind oil

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Stalingrad

Post by bf109 emil » 03 May 2009 21:27

kon wrote:Some oil deposits have been grasped by Germans, but Russian had time to blow up chinks. A year would be required as early as to restore there oil extracting. It was easier to crush red army and to win war than to go to Caucasus behind oil

why would it take a year...after the Polesti raid, oil production was back within weeks and with Romanian an ally, there knowledge or expertise would IMHO be able to resume oil flowing or extracting within days, refining might be a catch but to drill and pump into tankers and take to refineries in Germany would not have been a long time issue, maybe improving rail traffic to the Caucasus would have taken longer then to drill a known oil reserve and pump into tankers as this is fairly easy...
even disrupting this total to soviets would have hindered there movement
During that first year of the war, Azerbaijan produced 25.4 million tons of oil — a record. By the Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in February, 1942, the commitment of more than 500 workers and employees of the oil industry of Azerbaijan was recognised by the giving of orders and medals of the USSR.

kon
Banned
Posts: 281
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 15:55
Location: Belarus

Re: Stalingrad

Post by kon » 03 May 2009 22:21

War for oil it is frivolous,lol. Germans have come to Soviet Union not to plunder oil, but to crush Red Army and to win war. A part of oil deposits of Caucasus have been grasped, but for half a year to restore extraction it was not possible.
Germany the rich country and can buy a lot of oil from Russian.
Soviet Union in days of war consumed 20 million tons of oil a year, 5 million from them were spent for requirements of Red Army. In the today's prices it is 7,6 billion dollars a year.
War for oil :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Stalingrad

Post by bf109 emil » 04 May 2009 06:35

kon wrote:War for oil it is frivolous,lol. Germans have come to Soviet Union not to plunder oil, but to crush Red Army and to win war. A part of oil deposits of Caucasus have been grasped, but for half a year to restore extraction it was not possible.
Germany the rich country and can buy a lot of oil from Russian.
Soviet Union in days of war consumed 20 million tons of oil a year, 5 million from them were spent for requirements of Red Army. In the today's prices it is 7,6 billion dollars a year.
War for oil :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't think Barbarossa was launched as an oil war...it was an adjective of case blue although...

kon
Banned
Posts: 281
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 15:55
Location: Belarus

Re: Stalingrad

Post by kon » 04 May 2009 07:24

Germans could win war and then occupy Caucasus. At first a victory over Russian and only then oil, wheat and other things

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008 21:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Stalingrad

Post by bf109 emil » 04 May 2009 07:37

kon wrote:Germans could win war and then occupy Caucasus. At first a victory over Russian and only then oil, wheat and other things

They tried to win and couldn't do it...so crippling an opponent and capturing necessary supplies to aid your side and hamper the enemy was next...

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”