PDA

View Full Version : Battle of Stalingrad



gusord
12-10-2013, 09:56 PM
I bought a book about the BATTLE OF STALINGRAD in pictures day by day with the documentation. According to this book the Russians suffered
400,000 casualties vs 300,000 for the Germans[ don't quote me but it may have been Soviets 400,000 killed vs 300,000 Germans killed]. General
Chiukov commanded the Russian troops in the city with their backs against the Volga River and no retreat.
The total US ARMED FORCES killed in ww 2 was about 400,000. I don't know if that includes Merchant Mariners lost at sea.

gusord

Wittmann
03-07-2014, 11:40 PM
The battle of Stalingrad was a very bloody and epic struggle for both sides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad.

Gusord,

If you would please post the name of the book and your thoughts on it, I'm always looking for something good to read.

Nickdfresh
03-08-2014, 10:11 AM
I thought Beevor's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_%28book%29) on the subject was pretty good...

JR*
03-12-2014, 10:48 AM
Nick - I agree. Beevor is pretty good. Beevor is always worth taking seriously - not that I would necessarily agree with him on everything ... Best regards, JR.

Wittmann
03-14-2014, 11:24 PM
Thanks for the input Nick and JR,

I'll check on amazon and pickup a copy.

Kilroy
03-15-2014, 06:17 PM
Well all I know is that its the turning point in the war for the Russians

Chevan
05-11-2014, 11:46 AM
Nick - I agree. Beevor is pretty good. Beevor is always worth taking seriously - not that I would necessarily agree with him on everything ... Best regards, JR.
Hello JR.
Beevour is more romancer and novelist rather then a historian..
Not to mention ..the propogandist. Like it is coming up obvious in his "Berlin1945.Downfall"

Chevan
05-11-2014, 12:08 PM
I bought a book about the BATTLE OF STALINGRAD in pictures day by day with the documentation. According to this book the Russians suffered
400,000 casualties vs 300,000 for the Germans[ don't quote me but it may have been Soviets 400,000 killed vs 300,000 Germans killed]. General
Chiukov commanded the Russian troops in the city with their backs against the Volga River and no retreat.
The total US ARMED FORCES killed in ww 2 was about 400,000. I don't know if that includes Merchant Mariners lost at sea.

gusord
Hellow gusorb.
The figure of total soviet loses of battle of Stalingrad is close to 1.2 millions with up to 480 000 KIA. The Wermacht and it's allies lost 841 000 totally with 230 000 POWs. But most of axis POWs died of debilitation witin the first year of captivity.

Kilroy
05-12-2014, 09:22 AM
Wasn't the fact that Hitler order to bomb the city that gave the edge for the Russians. SInce the city was so heavy bombed that there was rumble everywhere and the tanks couldn't advance and with that it was infantry vs infantry sort of battle ( for the most part if I stand correctly. Since the Russians where able to win the battle with the superior amount of troops and ( I am not so sure of this next part) thats about the time the t-34 was introduced to the front ....?

Ardee
05-12-2014, 06:43 PM
Kilroy: The T-34 was available since 1940, and was a rude surprise to the Germans during Barborossa. Their numbers, however, were not high. Yes, bombing did create advantageous terrain for infantry to hide in (if the bombs didn't get them, of course). However, urban environments are very poor, unsafe places for tanks, whether they have been bombed or not (think both limited LOS, and plenty of places to be ambushed from close proximity -- including possibly from upper stories against thin "top" armor) . Even if the city was in pristine condition, it is unlikely panzers would have tried rolling through like they might in more open country.

JR*
05-13-2014, 04:32 AM
My impression is that Stalingrad was, for the most part, an infantry battle. As Ardee says, all urban environments are very hazardous for tanks (as the Germans discovered as far back as the battle of Dordrecht in 1940). Certainly, there were some German tanks in the city, but relatively few. Most of 6th Army's panzers seem to have been posted on the forward flanks of the salient outside the city, where they spent most of their time sealing off Soviet attempts at infiltration. Not that this saved them in the end - they were enveloped and destroyed in the eventual Soviet counter-offensive.

As for the Soviets - they had enough difficulty ferrying infantry across the river to replace the colossal losses they were incurring without getting much involved in ferrying tanks into this unsuitable environment. The bombed-out wasteland into which those infantry were ferried did convey advantages on the Soviets. Apart from big set pieces within the battle - notably at the Tractor Factory and the Grain Elevator - the Germans could never really tell where the next sniper or antitank rifle bullet was going to come from, even at very close range, and the only way the Germans could proceed was to clear each bit of cover out painstakingly. The determination of the Soviet commanders and soldiers ensured that there would be no quick victory here. Best regards, JR.

Kilroy
05-13-2014, 09:08 AM
Kilroy: The T-34 was available since 1940, and was a rude surprise to the Germans during Barborossa. Their numbers, however, were not high. Yes, bombing did create advantageous terrain for infantry to hide in (the bombs didn't get them, of course). However, urban environments are very poor, unsafe places for tanks, whether they have been bombed or not (think both limited LOS, and plenty of places to be ambushed from close proximity -- including possibly from upper stories against thin "top" armor) . Even if the city was in pristine condition, it is unlikely panzers would have tried rolling through like they might in more open country.

O okay so it seems in a sense that I was somewhat correct yet I got a lot of things wrong. I apologize for that since my knowledge of eastern front is quite limited.

Samoax
05-27-2014, 06:23 AM
not to mention Soviet artillery fiering across the Volga river..

Chevan
05-27-2014, 11:13 AM
My impression is that Stalingrad was, for the most part, an infantry battle. As Ardee says, all urban environments are very hazardous for tanks (as the Germans discovered as far back as the battle of Dordrecht in 1940). Certainly, there were some German tanks in the city, but relatively few. Most of 6th Army's panzers seem to have been posted on the forward flanks of the salient outside the city, where they spent most of their time sealing off Soviet attempts at infiltration. Not that this saved them in the end - they were enveloped and destroyed in the eventual Soviet counter-offensive.

As for the Soviets - they had enough difficulty ferrying infantry across the river to replace the colossal losses they were incurring without getting much involved in ferrying tanks into this unsuitable environment. The bombed-out wasteland into which those infantry were ferried did convey advantages on the Soviets. Apart from big set pieces within the battle - notably at the Tractor Factory and the Grain Elevator - the Germans could never really tell where the next sniper or antitank rifle bullet was going to come from, even at very close range, and the only way the Germans could proceed was to clear each bit of cover out painstakingly. The determination of the Soviet commanders and soldiers ensured that there would be no quick victory here. Best regards, JR.
If my memory serves well, the 6 army had an entire 16 Panzer-division in Stalingrad, soviets tanks were rare and only in the first stage of the batlle , later the 62 and 64 armies fought without a single tank, coz only the some of artillery could be supplied through the Voga.

stalin
01-22-2015, 04:26 AM
Well all I know is that its the turning point in the war for the Russians

not only for the Soviets. Stalingrad was the biggest and the most decisive battle of WWII and all times that turned the tide of the war, after which the West saw clearly which side was to be the winner and made its choice between the two by joining the USSR in the end.

stalin
01-22-2015, 04:29 AM
I thought Beevor's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_%28book%29) on the subject was pretty good...

i don't think so. Beevor has already told enough lies to be not trusted as a writer.

flamethrowerguy
01-22-2015, 03:56 PM
Oh, could it be possible that Chevan moved to Moscow?:)

tankgeezer
01-22-2015, 07:18 PM
He was a Fan of the Federation, so could be.. :)

leccy
01-23-2015, 04:32 AM
not only for the Soviets. Stalingrad was the biggest and the most decisive battle of WWII and all times that turned the tide of the war, after which the West saw clearly which side was to be the winner and made its choice between the two by joining the USSR in the end.

Erm the West joined the USSR in the end - hmmmmmm me thinks someone is

a - a troll
b - lacking some basic history
c - a soviet version of a wehrberoo

The poor old Soviets carved up eastern Europe with the Nazis in 1939 (Poland, Baltic States), did a deal over Romania pretty much forcing Romania to join the Axis camp, attacked Finland and then sat out of the war watching the Axis and British Commonwealth (along with what forces escaped to continue fighting after their countries were occupied) fight each other - all the while happily supplying Germany with materiel enabling it to prosecute its war (literally upto the minute Germany decided to head East with its allies).

The Soviets only joined in fighting against the Axis when the Axis attacked them

You may not have noticed that the British Commonwealth were fighting looooooong before the Soviets against the Axis - and along with the US supplied huge amounts of equipment to the Soviets al the while fighting all over the world not just along one front (as well as bombing the Axis heavily and supplying the various resistance and partisan groups).

I never realised the rest of the allies never destroyed the Luftwaffe or Kreigsmarine as effective forces, took Italy out of the war, disrupted german war production, kept nearly a million people in AA defence of Germany (with all those guns and ammunition), that the Soviets supplied everything they needed themselves.

Rising Sun*
01-23-2015, 07:21 AM
Erm the West joined the USSR in the end - hmmmmmm me thinks someone is

a - a troll
b - lacking some basic history
c - a soviet version of a wehrberoo

The poor old Soviets carved up eastern Europe with the Nazis in 1939 (Poland, Baltic States), did a deal over Romania pretty much forcing Romania to join the Axis camp, attacked Finland and then sat out of the war watching the Axis and British Commonwealth (along with what forces escaped to continue fighting after their countries were occupied) fight each other - all the while happily supplying Germany with materiel enabling it to prosecute its war (literally upto the minute Germany decided to head East with its allies).

The Soviets only joined in fighting against the Axis when the Axis attacked them

You may not have noticed that the British Commonwealth were fighting looooooong before the Soviets against the Axis - and along with the US supplied huge amounts of equipment to the Soviets al the while fighting all over the world not just along one front (as well as bombing the Axis heavily and supplying the various resistance and partisan groups).

I never realised the rest of the allies never destroyed the Luftwaffe or Kreigsmarine as effective forces, took Italy out of the war, disrupted german war production, kept nearly a million people in AA defence of Germany (with all those guns and ammunition), that the Soviets supplied everything they needed themselves.

Why do you insist upon introducing facts into a historical discussion?

Do you have any idea how confronting this can be for people like stalin (and his namesake who, displeased with facts, disposed of the census takers who came up with the wrong number for the Soviet population in the late 1930s, which ensured that the next lot of census takers got the figures to agree with Stalin's)?

If you keep this up, you'll only encourage others (possibly even me) to upset stalin with more facts contradicting him. ;)

Rising Sun*
01-23-2015, 07:43 AM
Stalingrad was the biggest and the most decisive battle of WWII and all times that turned the tide of the war

Really?

Where would the USSR have been without the Battle of Britain, which stopped Germany invading Britain and allowed Britain and its Commonwealth to fight on alone in the world until the USSR was forced into the war by Germany's attack in mid-1941?

Imagine what would have happened to the USSR if Britain had been defeated and the German forces it held against it in western Europe and the Mediterranean and the Atlantic to mid-1941 had been released for the assault on the USSR.

Not to mention the material and materiel support which came to the USSR from Britain and from America based through Britain to the USSR after the USSR was forced into the war.

Around the same time Britain was busy evacuating its army from France so it could continue its lone fight with its Commonwealth against Germany, the USSR after carving up eastern Europe with Germany was busy massacring 20,000 or so Polish soldiers at Katyn.

Shortly afterwards Britain defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain, which held German forces against Britain in various theatres.

This allowed the USSR to avoid fighting Germany, which was a very good idea as Stalin, with the rare brilliance of paranoid dictators, had wiped out much of the senior ranks of the Soviet officer corps in his memorably stupid purges and thereby left his army deficient in leadership capable of matching the Germans.


after which the West saw clearly which side was to be the winner and made its choice between the two by joining the USSR in the end.

Other way around.

As leccy said,

Either you're a troll or, politely, ignorant of history.

Either way, best for you to lift your game.

stalin
01-23-2015, 08:33 AM
Erm the West joined the USSR in the end

that is, in 1944.

stalin
01-23-2015, 08:44 AM
Really?

really, the numbers show that Moscow, Kursk and Stalingrad were the largest battles of WWII.


Where would the USSR have been without the Battle of Britain

just there where it had been... and to call a military operation 'battle' it takes sufficient amount of infantry to be involved in it; so how many Nazi Germany soldiers were destroyed by the British alone?

Nickdfresh
01-24-2015, 06:22 AM
i don't think so. Beevor has already told enough lies to be not trusted as a writer.

Oh of course! That evil Beevor, that manages to piss off both the Russians and Germans at the same time...

Rising Sun*
01-24-2015, 08:52 AM
really, the numbers show that Moscow, Kursk and Stalingrad were the largest battles of WWII.

Largest battle judged by numbers of troops involved doesn't necessarily equate to most important in an overall strategic sense.



just there where it had been... and to call a military operation 'battle' it takes sufficient amount of infantry to be involved in it

"Battle" is a fluid term in popular and often military usage and in describing elements of an armed conflict.

The way you want to use it results, for example, in the Battle of Britain in the air and the Battle of the Atlantic and the pivotal Battle of Midway on the sea not happening because they didn't involve infantry.

As for Kursk, it was in conventional land warfare terms an operation involving a series of battles, not, as you say, an operation which was a battle. Battles can occur in various circumstances in land warfare but so far as operations are concerned they are usually part of an operation rather than the entire operation.



; so how many Nazi Germany soldiers were destroyed by the British alone?

A. The figure is irrelevant because
B. British Commonwealth forces were the only ones fighting Germany after France surrendered (and the USSR was busy oppressing eastern Europe) which
C. Resulted in significant strategic damage to Germany in the Atlantic and Mediterranean on water and in North Africa on land which
D. Kept the Suez Canal under Allied control which was critical to the war against Japan and
E. Reduced the forces available for Barbarossa and in particular
F. The British Commonwealth campaign in Greece and Crete, although a failure, delayed Barbarossa by about six weeks, which delay was critical by the time the Germans reached Moscow too late to endure the winter which
G. Was lucky for the USSR as if Britain had capitulated when France did, then Hitler would have turned all his forces on his main aim of conquering the USSR and, in the unlikely event your ancestors survived, you'd be speaking German now.

Body counts don't mean much by themselves, as the Americans and South Vietnamese demonstrated over many years in Vietnam with triumphant, and frequently woefully inaccurate, body counts against an enemy which duly won.

stalin
01-24-2015, 09:08 AM
Oh of course! That evil Beevor, that manages to piss off both the Russians and Germans at the same time...

because he is British and was told to white wash the Brits while tarnish Russians and Germans, right?

stalin
01-24-2015, 09:31 AM
Largest battle judged by numbers of troops involved doesn't necessarily equate to most important in an overall strategic sense.

if by 'startegic' you mean a dastardly and cowardly practice of hiding from war while letting others fight it, then Britain is of course the winner here; but the talk is of true war where 'war' means destroying as much enemy sodiers as possible, which results in taking and controlling the territories the war is being waged for; this is what only matters.


So, for example, the Battle of Britain in the air and the Battle of the Atlantic and the pivotal Battle of Midway on the sea didn't happen because they didn't involve infantry?

take the world map and see where's Germany; is it on sea?


As for Kursk, it was an operation involving a series of battles.

that does make up for a military operation, let's not go hair-splitting.


The figure is irrelevant because

because they would show how small was Britain's role in that war?

Rising Sun*
01-24-2015, 09:41 AM
if by 'startegic' you mean a dastardly and cowardly practice of hiding from war while letting others fight it, then Britain is of course the winner here; but the talk is of true war where 'war' means destroying as much enemy sodiers as possible, which results in taking and controlling the territories the war is being waged for; this is what only matters.



take the world map and see where's Germany; is it on sea?



that does make up for a military operation, let's not go hair-splitting.



because they would show how small was Britain's role in that war?

Time is running out, because this post in conjunction with your latest posts indicates strongly to me that you are not merely a fu*kwit but a troll.

Nobody could join a military forum and be as stupid as you, yet manage to operate a keyboard.

Your future on this board is in your own hands.

Consider this a mod warning.

stalin
01-24-2015, 09:50 AM
Consider this a mod warning.

reasons?.. or is this censorship?

tankgeezer
01-24-2015, 10:08 AM
It's certainly not Censorship, and your stating that question only deepens the suspicion. Heed the man's warning, he doesn't give many.

stalin
01-24-2015, 10:10 AM
It's certainly not Censorship, and your stating that question only deepens the suspicion.

i only expressed my opinion different from yours, what's suspiciuos about that?

tankgeezer
01-24-2015, 11:00 AM
I have expressed no opinion on this thread's subject for you differ with. I will however say that some of what you've posted in this thread, particularly the Censorship comment, does fit the Troll profile well enough to garner this attention.

stalin
01-24-2015, 12:59 PM
I will however say that some of what you've posted in this thread, particularly the Censorship comment, does fit the Troll profile well enough to garner this attention.

and how? will you please elaborate?

tankgeezer
01-24-2015, 05:40 PM
I should also and particularly point to some posts in another thread: "The role of the USSR in World War II" In this thread you posted the following. "the East Front was the main WWII front where the biggest part of Nazi Germany troops was amassed and largest & most decisive battles ever in the history of mankind fought, so it was the USSR that won this war, hands down." To which RS* responded, " Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
All by itself? and your reply to that,, "all by itself."
Now, Moderators of long experience will see this as Trolling, or very uninformed, and careless posting. In either case, this can lead to attracting attention of the Staff. And here I will leave it.

stalin
01-25-2015, 01:23 AM
I should also and particularly point to some posts in another thread: "The role of the USSR in World War II" In this thread you posted the following. "the East Front was the main WWII front where the biggest part of Nazi Germany troops was amassed and largest & most decisive battles ever in the history of mankind fought, so it was the USSR that won this war, hands down." To which RS* responded, " Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
All by itself? and your reply to that,, "all by itself."
Now, Moderators of long experience will see this as Trolling, or very uninformed, and careless posting.

for gosh sake why?.. my point is corroborated by all the numbers and statistics of the WWII which are there for everyone to see.

tankgeezer
01-25-2015, 10:17 AM
You cite Statistics that are not supported in any books besides those you alone seem to be looking at. Sorry, but by your own posting of this day in other threads, I can see only trouble coming your way. And that fairly soon.

stalin
01-26-2015, 03:51 AM
You cite Statistics that are not supported in any books

which books? Beevor's or other West authors who certainly have an axe to grind here?

JR*
01-26-2015, 05:34 AM
I begin to fear, in relation to our new Comrade, that "the fen and fell his fastness was ..." Yours from the Dragon's Cave, JR.

tankgeezer
01-26-2015, 09:43 AM
Try quoting the entire sentence, instead of rudely edited bits, and pieces. I will not participate in your subterfuge Stalin, nor play along in your Troll game. Soon enough, no one here will. You have one Moderator warning already, I believe it's time you have two. Your activity on this Site is strongly indicative of Trolling,, which is not allowed here. Persist in this behavior, and your future here is dim. This is a Moderator warning.

tankgeezer
01-26-2015, 05:47 PM
I begin to fear, in relation to our new Comrade, that "the fen and fell his fastness was ..." Yours from the Dragon's Cave, JR.
This unhappy being had long lived in the land of Trolls, since the Staff had cast them out as kindred of Cain ..

Frankly Dude Really
03-05-2015, 07:21 AM
Besides, Stalin couldn't have been a corporal.


edit:
Here, on this forum:
stalin's Avatar
stalin
stalin is Corporal

It is a joke.

JR*
03-05-2015, 09:17 AM
I know I am rather stupid - but I simply do not understand the last comment. Are we to go philosophical on this ? Yours from the Stoa, JR.

Nickdfresh
03-05-2015, 06:37 PM
It might be a slight based on the Fuhrer's glorious military career in WWI...

383man
06-08-2015, 02:11 AM
The US and Britian were sending lend lease supplies to Russia by 1942 and they were already allies by 1942 not 1944. Many times I see the eastern front figures blown up just so it makes it look like Russia did more then it did. Ron