PDA

View Full Version : Battle of Stalingrad



Kregs
12-15-2008, 11:08 AM
We now know that this battle was a major turning point in the German army.

I was wondering what mistakes were made by the German Army. What could the Germans have done to prevent such a devastating blow to their defense?

herman2
12-15-2008, 11:19 AM
The Germans could have surrendered earlier. That would have helped a lot.

flamethrowerguy
12-15-2008, 12:34 PM
The Germans could have surrendered earlier. That would have helped a lot.

From a humane point of view, yes. Not from a pure military point of view.

Dara
12-15-2008, 05:04 PM
From a humane point of view, yes. Not from a pure military point of view.

Do you really think close to the end of this engagement that Hitler was actually thinking militarily? I find it difficult to believe that based on the fact that he was still pushing his troops to win, when it was plainly obvious that they were toast. It seems as if he was thinking about his reputation more.

Please let me know if what I've stated is inaccurate.

flamethrowerguy
12-15-2008, 05:15 PM
Do you really think close to the end of this engagement that Hitler was actually thinking militarily? I find it difficult to believe that based on the fact that he was still pushing his troops to win, when it was plainly obvious that they were toast. It seems as if he was thinking about his reputation more.

Please let me know if what I've stated is inaccurate.

No, you're quite right. It's just that a "miltary point of view" doesn't inevitably include Hitler's clouded train of thoughts.
The pure "military necessity" of the 6th Army's struggle in and around Stalingrad was the anchoring of strong Soviet forces and so allowing the Army Group South establishing a new defence line at the Don river.

kallinikosdrama1992
12-16-2008, 03:48 AM
Guys can't we also see the morale part . I mean wasnt the battle of Stalingrad the next big operation after the battle of Moscow ??? They defeated there and they have many casualties . also another aspect wasnt the lack of winter clothing for the germans ?

Ivaylo
12-16-2008, 07:05 AM
Well let's start first that Hitler for first time since the start of war concentrated all of his power into one ruin city simply for his ego , which was desaster because the blitzkrieg was created for open spaces not to be concentrated in closed spaces of the city where the tanks of the germans turned useless . Also the constant change of the main target/ targets caused confusion and gave the needed time for the soviets to organize . And not on last place Stalin gave the command to Zukov for the defense unlike the personal full command of the army by Hitler never listenning to his generals .

kallinikosdrama1992
12-16-2008, 07:12 AM
Ivaylo is totally right !!! Hitler and Stalin were both diktatores but there was a difference between them . Hitler trusted his ego while Stalin had the supreme command but the army command was tou ZHukov and other generals . This was also for me at least that germany lost the war . So i "follow" Ivaylo

flamethrowerguy
12-16-2008, 08:53 AM
Guys can't we also see the morale part . I mean wasnt the battle of Stalingrad the next big operation after the battle of Moscow ??? They defeated there and they have many casualties . also another aspect wasnt the lack of winter clothing for the germans ?

It's almost impossible to leave out morale aspects when referring to the Battle of Stalingrad.
One problem of Hitler's "planning" was that forces of Army Group South were splitted, going for another major goal, the Caucasus mountains.
Furthermore the supply lines were simply overstretched.

herman2
12-16-2008, 09:01 AM
Ivaylo is totally right !!! Hitler and Stalin were both diktatores but there was a difference between them . Hitler trusted his ego while Stalin had the supreme command but the army command was tou ZHukov and other generals . This was also for me at least that germany lost the war . So i "follow" Ivaylo

Ivaylo is always right!. I follow him too!!:army:

Ivaylo
12-16-2008, 10:40 AM
Ivaylo is always right!. I follow her too!!:army:

Her ? :shock::shock::lol::lol::lol: I am a boy not a girl man :lol::lol:

herman2
12-16-2008, 10:44 AM
SORRY..I corrected my last post.so sorry, I was thinking of this pretty girl that sits next me when i posted that response..sorry once again!

Ivaylo
12-16-2008, 10:49 AM
No problem man , it was actually funny to read that :)

kallinikosdrama1992
12-16-2008, 02:12 PM
Flamethrower's right , the other bigger problem was the splitting move of the army group south , if i read and remember correct , cause the hammer did not fall "correctly" uppon the russian forces . Also just for the record the "her" of Herman to Ivaylo was really good ...:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Kregs
12-16-2008, 04:12 PM
Ivaylo is totally right !!! Hitler and Stalin were both diktatores but there was a difference between them . Hitler trusted his ego while Stalin had the supreme command but the army command was tou ZHukov and other generals .

Stalin had ego a-plenty in WWII. It is just funny how that single battle put the breaks on further German advances.

It seemed like a downhill slide ever since.

colonel hogan
12-16-2008, 04:14 PM
We now know that this battle was a major turning point in the German army.

I was wondering what mistakes were made by the German Army. What could the Germans have done to prevent such a devastating blow to their defense?

theyre problem was that major irwin konig wasn't successful in killing vasilli zaitsev

tankgeezer
12-16-2008, 08:09 PM
Dont forget that by this time, Hitler was under fairly heavy medication, and suffered from a few different conditions.This was most likely reflected in his strange military decisions later in the war.(not to mention being banned from X-Box gaming)

kallinikosdrama1992
12-17-2008, 05:38 AM
Cant we also say that a part in german loss of battle of stalingrad was the Allied
Invasion in North Africa ??? Or it happen later ???

Ace Vantura
12-17-2008, 07:26 AM
Lets face it here, Mother Nature was a big cause in the German defeat!
I thank my lucky stars most times that Mother Nature back during the Stalingrad compaine never gave out normal weather. If so i believe we would not be here right now.
My believe and comon sence.

Regrads.

kallinikosdrama1992
12-17-2008, 07:40 AM
Yeah the weather took big part in teh loss of the germans . But guys everything we posted , i guess , is right , but maybe the first reason for the defeat , i guess , was the compination of all those reasons . The cold weather , the split of the army south group the morale part and also the ego of Hitler .
But thats me .

alephh
12-17-2008, 07:43 AM
Let's say that Hitler orders 6th Army to surrender after it is encircled.

That would open up the only major supply-route (railway via Stalingrad) in the southern sector of the eastern front.

Soviet armies (lot of them were trying to move forward but could not because of the lack of supplies) would get ammo, fuel, etc... enabling them to roll forward, before German could setup the new front. Soviet armies would take Ukraine, outflank the German Army Group center, cut the supply lines of German forces located in Caucasus. WWII would be over, pretty much immediately?

Forcing the 6th Army to continue fighting was essential (only sensible solution):
1) it tied up a lot of soviet armies
2) it left rest of the southern sector soviet armies without supplies
3) it gave Germans time to setup a new frontline
4) it bought enough time to evacuate German forces from Caucasus

_

Ivaylo
12-17-2008, 10:23 AM
As i said concentrating a single army in one town was just perfect for the soviets allowing high sniper activity and very much resistance . Well i have a question why Hitler instead didn't surround the city like he did with Leningrad ( well the siege wasn't complete of course ) that would save many german troop lives and as we know the blitzkrieg tactic is surround and destroy with one fast move . Latter actually the brilliant Zhukov did use the german tactic against them with two armies closing the 6th army in ring of steel . Other thing - concentrating the 6th army in that single object made it vulnerable - their flanks were "protected" by poorly equiped armies with the iliusion that the soviets won't counter attack really silly by Hitler as he never learned the Moskow lesson that the red army always make counter attacks in the winter. And it's never a good decision to waste one army in bitter fight i would rather pull them back regroup them , give them winter clothes and establish a defensive position after a soviet attack then i would counter attack surrounding the Stalingrad and completely encircle it as in the open the germans expecially with such big army and in 1941-1942 were hard to stop .

kallinikosdrama1992
12-17-2008, 03:51 PM
Well about the less casualty rate Hitler was a bip !!! You all know what i mean . He also , i guess , was the leader of the kind "lets sacrifice as many as we can so we can achieve victory , so was stalin , i also gues , from the men and the way he sacrifices his men ... Perhaps he couldn't make this flanking movement because of the Volga river but if i am not mistaken . And i dont think he would risk something also like Leningrad . But thats me

Ivaylo
12-17-2008, 03:57 PM
Well about the less casualty rate Hitler was a bip !!! You all know what i mean . He also , i guess , was the leader of the kind "lets sacrifice as many as we can so we can achieve victory , so was stalin , i also gues , from the men and the way he sacrifices his men ... Perhaps he couldn't make this flanking movement because of the Volga river but if i am not mistaken . And i dont think he would risk something also like Leningrad . But thats me

Well that was just what i was thinking about avoiding the mistakes of Stalingrad and the major "luxury" that hitler made was one of his biggest mistakes too - to waste so many soldiers and to think in way "lets sacrifice as many as we can so we can achieve victory " is ok if you have 148 milions population like Russia , if you don't have them simply soon you ran out of troops and you pull children into the front line . Yes perhaps it was not possible because of the Volga i don't know too .

kallinikosdrama1992
12-17-2008, 04:17 PM
Well i guess we forget something . Didn't the russians in the battle Stalingrad made the "advance or you die" . Well we actually kill you they should say but ... and about the part of the encircling part was , i guess , that he should brought more army in the Stalingrad front .

flamethrowerguy
12-17-2008, 04:49 PM
Didn't the russians in the battle Stalingrad made the "advance or you die".

The dictum was rather called "No step backwards"

Ivaylo
12-17-2008, 06:54 PM
Well i guess we forget something . Didn't the russians in the battle Stalingrad made the "advance or you die" . Well we actually kill you they should say but ... and about the part of the encircling part was , i guess , that he should brought more army in the Stalingrad front .

Well Hitler also had ways of "encouraging " his own troops like he forbidden the cease fire even to take the wounded and of course any retreat was dealt with shot for the "deserter " anyone who didn't obey orders were put in punishment battalion i think where you have to do dirty work in the open conditions with harsh winter .

kallinikosdrama1992
12-18-2008, 04:05 PM
and dont forget that the russian winter forced the germans to retreat only in the battle of stalingrad but also in moscow and i think in leningrad to

Dara
12-21-2008, 06:01 PM
So the initial causes of the downfall of Operation Barbarossa was weather, lack of proper supplies, lack of food (because we know that the Germans lacked food, which caused many fatalities; even after finding out the cause and trying to give the soldiers meat-paste that was too concentrated caused more deaths than starvation had), and Hitler changing his mind every other day, right?

flamethrowerguy
12-21-2008, 06:11 PM
So the initial causes of the downfall of Operation Barbarossa was weather, lack of proper supplies, lack of food (because we know that the Germans lacked food, which caused many fatalities; even after finding out the cause and trying to give the soldiers meat-paste that was too concentrated caused more deaths than starvation had), and Hitler changing his mind every other day, right?

Summing it up that way would be a little too trivial I am afraid.
What about the meat-paste thing, never heard of that. Do you have more details about this? Exact denomination or the producer maybe...?
Gotta know if the producer still exists to check my repository!http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Kotzen/28.gif (http://www.smileygarden.de)

navyson
12-21-2008, 06:45 PM
Here's an interesting link to German rations. Talks of meat rations but not really any meat paste.
http://www.dererstezug.com/IronRation.htm

flamethrowerguy
12-21-2008, 07:42 PM
Here's an interesting link to German rations. Talks of meat rations but not really any meat paste.
http://www.dererstezug.com/IronRation.htm

Hey, that's an interesting site of a reenactment group. Although it says nothing about the meat-paste of death there's some great stuff there.
I liked the guidance to the typical Wehrmacht hair cut!

navyson
12-21-2008, 07:57 PM
Hey, that's an interesting site of a reenactment group. Although it says nothing about the meat-paste of death there's some great stuff there.
I liked the guidance to the typical Wehrmacht hair cut!
That is a very informative and professional site. I went back and looked around on it some more.

Dara
12-22-2008, 09:59 AM
Summing it up that way would be a little too trivial I am afraid.
What about the meat-paste thing, never heard of that. Do you have more details about this? Exact denomination or the producer maybe...?
Gotta know if the producer still exists to check my repository!http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Kotzen/28.gif (http://www.smileygarden.de)

Perhaps trying to sum it up so tightly is not the best way to express what happened. However, it seems as if that's what people want to say about this particular campaign, even if it is a trivial way of presenting it.

LINK (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:L92U6MXz-AwJ:jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/93/2/97.pdf+stalingrad+medicine&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
This article explains what I'm talking about if you read under "Starvation". There are also references cited.

pdf27
12-22-2008, 11:52 AM
This is all I am going to tell u for today.:army:
If the rest of your output is going to be like that, please refrain from telling us anything else, ever. About 80% of it is wrong, and the rest is blindingly obvious.

herman2
12-22-2008, 12:56 PM
the germans did not make many tanks the germans should have marched out of stalingrad and leave guards. If they took over russia there would not be any russians around.after world war two the russians took over germany and left a couple years later back to there own place. In 1947 the russians went into a store in germany and saw the stg-44. They did not buy it because they knew how to make it. They called it the AK-47. AK-47's can work under water. The Russians still use the AK-47 now. I think the MG-42 is better then the AK-47. MG-42's are still used but now they call it the MG-3. The MG-34 is simualar to the MG-42. The Differance between them is the MG-42 has a square barrel and the MG-34 has a circle barrel. The M1 Garand is a american gun that is automatic. The MP-40 was used by the germans in ww2. The thompson machine gun was used by the americans and british. This is all I am going to tell u for today.:army:

Dude, You make us Canadians look bad. Do yourself a favour and stay out of the Alberta Tar Ponds....

pdf27
12-22-2008, 01:47 PM
Dude, You make us Canadians look bad. Do yourself a favour and stay out of the Alberta Tar Ponds....
Staying in them would suit me just fine!

flamethrowerguy
12-22-2008, 03:57 PM
Perhaps trying to sum it up so tightly is not the best way to express what happened. However, it seems as if that's what people want to say about this particular campaign, even if it is a trivial way of presenting it.

LINK (http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:L92U6MXz-AwJ:jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/93/2/97.pdf+stalingrad+medicine&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
This article explains what I'm talking about if you read under "Starvation". There are also references cited.

Now I see what you were up to. In your original post you were mentioning the assumed reason for the failure of Operation Barbarossa though.
This "instant death" phenomenon however occured inside the Stalingrad pocket exclusively. It was nicknamed "the heart of the 6th Army" (Das Herz der 6. Armee).

herman2
12-30-2008, 12:50 PM
Stalinís son named Yakov Dzhugashvili was captured by the Germans early in the war. When German Field Marshal Paulus was captured in the battle of Stalingrad, the Germans offered to trade Stalinís son for the Field Marshall. Stalin refused and subsequently Stalinís son died in German detention camp at later date of questionable causes. Hard to believe that a man would sacrifise his own son for reasons of war. I just donít understand this.

flamethrowerguy
12-30-2008, 01:11 PM
Stalin’s son named Yakov Dzhugashvili was captured by the Germans early in the war. When German Field Marshal Paulus was captured in the battle of Stalingrad, the Germans offered to trade Stalin’s son for the Field Marshall. Stalin refused and subsequently Stalin’s son died in German detention camp at later date of questionable causes. Hard to believe that a man would sacrifise his own son for reasons of war. I just don’t understand this.

As far as I know the fate of Stalin's son is uncertain. He was a 1st Lieutenant in soviet Artillery Regiment 14 and was captured on July 19, 1941.
It's told that Stalin answered to the proposal of the prisoners' exchange you mentioned as following: "It's a bad deal to change a Field Marshal for a Lieutenant"...

3095

Schuultz
01-04-2009, 04:17 PM
Well, let's be thankful for that. Who knows how the Sowjet Union would have gone on if Stalin had a successor of his own blood, though I don't know what his son's views were.

And talking about Stalingrad: Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just make a defensive perimeter around the city right away, and block it from the outside instead of marching in and getting killed by snipers,etc.

In the end, though, the Red Army's average soldier might not have been as experienced or skilled as a German one (pure assumption of historians, everybody is an individual and should be treated as such), but the superior number would have broken the Wehrmacht's back sooner or later, I'm quite positive about that.

I can imagine very few scenarios through which the Axis would have been able to achieve a knockout victory against Soviet Russia, and even then they would still have had to face the Allied armies in the West and South.

Ivaylo
01-05-2009, 08:08 AM
Well, let's be thankful for that. Who knows how the Sowjet Union would have gone on if Stalin had a successor of his own blood, though I don't know what his son's views were.

And talking about Stalingrad: Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just make a defensive perimeter around the city right away, and block it from the outside instead of marching in and getting killed by snipers,etc.

In the end, though, the Red Army's average soldier might not have been as experienced or skilled as a German one (pure assumption of historians, everybody is an individual and should be treated as such), but the superior number would have broken the Wehrmacht's back sooner or later, I'm quite positive about that.

I can imagine very few scenarios through which the Axis would have been able to achieve a knockout victory against Soviet Russia, and even then they would still have had to face the Allied armies in the West and South.
The key of winning the Eastern campaign was for quick capture of at least 1 or 2 major Russian cities , it's believed that this would impact a major blow to the morale of the russians (though that is not sure of course ) . One more thing the numbers don't always mean a victory , the superior tactician is that who win , Zuhkov and the some other few generals left were simply at the right time at the right place doing the right strategy , while the german generals were with tied hands from Hitler whom strategy was more like for the middle ages rather than for the such of 20 century mobile war . Wasting whole army in ruin city is always a huge blow mainly to the morale of your own troops as well as it opens a huge gap .

Schuultz
01-05-2009, 08:39 AM
The key of winning the Eastern campaign was for quick capture of at least 1 or 2 major Russian cities , it's believed that this would impact a major blow to the morale of the russians (though that is not sure of course ) . One more thing the numbers don't always mean a victory , the superior tactician is that who win , Zuhkov and the some other few generals left were simply at the right time at the right place doing the right strategy , while the german generals were with tied hands from Hitler whom strategy was more like for the middle ages rather than for the such of 20 century mobile war . Wasting whole army in ruin city is always a huge blow mainly to the morale of your own troops as well as it opens a huge gap .

Very true, especially since the Russians had to draw a lot of their soldiers from rural areas, often poorly educated. This was probably the reason for the "the Russian soldier is dumb and can't write" stereotype.
In reality, though, the common soldier's lack of experience was the reason the German army was able to defeat them at the beginning, but once enough soldiers lived enough to become experienced, and the commanders learned how to best use them, Germany's chances sank a lot.
The only way I can see Germany winning is, as you said, capturing major cities early on, but staying on the move, not giving the Red Army time to train soldiers. Time would have been of the essence, because as soon as the Army had time to draft recruits and train them properly, things would have been extremely hard, even if they were able to capture some cities.
But as long as Hitler was in command, this would have never happened. There's a reason Generals don't grow on trees and why common soldiers don't command. Hitler didn't realize that and the German people and their allies paid dearly for it, from a purely militarily perspective.

Caboliver
01-17-2009, 08:02 AM
I think it's pretty weird that the Germans would want to trade field marchall Paulus. I'v read that he got promoted when it was allready certain the battle was lost, because Hitler wanted him to kill himself. If Paulus would surrender it would be the first time a field marchall has surrendered to the enemy. Why would they later want to trade him back?

Schuultz
01-17-2009, 10:16 AM
I think it's pretty weird that the Germans would want to trade field marchall Paulus. I'v read that he got promoted when it was allready certain the battle was lost, because Hitler wanted him to kill himself. If Paulus would surrender it would be the first time a field marchall has surrendered to the enemy. Why would they later want to trade him back?

To make an example of him and execute him?

Digger
01-18-2009, 04:37 AM
Perhaps one of the main reasons behind the German failure at Stalingrad was that Stalingrad was never planned as the major objective. In fact the capture of Stalingrad as planned in Operation Blau was by a huge encircling manouvre north and south of the city, whilst the main objective was always the oilfields.

Conversly there are other matters to consider as to why Germany failed at Stalingrad and it's best to remember that Operation Blau was an offensive as big and complex as Operation Barbarossa with less resources at the German's disposal.

Ivaylo
01-18-2009, 10:01 AM
Perhaps one of the main reasons behind the German failure at Stalingrad was that Stalingrad was never planned as the major objective. In fact the capture of Stalingrad as planned in Operation Blau was by a huge encircling manouvre north and south of the city, whilst the main objective was always the oilfields.

Conversly there are other matters to consider as to why Germany failed at Stalingrad and it's best to remember that Operation Blau was an offensive as big and complex as Operation Barbarossa with less resources at the German's disposal.

Quite right to say that , actually you show us another mistake - shifting the major power of the offensive in a town ( which even if taken won't resolve much of the problem as the oil fields will be free ) - a battle which was more for prestige and showing power to the enemy rather than a huge strategic target . Even if we imagine that the german forces were in Stalingrad and fully occupied it ( of course by the end of the fight it would be hard to say that this was city anymore rather a ground filled with ruins ) the oil in Baku will be still intact and working and i suspect the soviets will be still using it mainly with transport trough the Kaspian sea maybe instad of transit trough Stalingrad .

sam davis
01-19-2009, 01:37 PM
being in the military..still dont understand.and there where no ss soliders at stalingrad..why didnt..the germans break out....when operation winter..general manstein..tried to rescue 6th army..why didnt soliders in near stailgrad..didnt brekout..they knew there fate in russian prison war camps..they have fought the russians for year and half......

flamethrowerguy
01-19-2009, 03:02 PM
why didnt..the germans break out....

Basically because they were ordered not to do so. Furthermore the german frontlines were already pushed back a couple of hundred miles. A -more or less- uncoordinated breakout attempt would have ended somewhere in the snowy steppe.


BTW, http://www.world-of-smilies.com/wos_party/fest30.gif (http://www.World-of-Smilies.com)

Schuultz
01-19-2009, 03:57 PM
way to go, FTG!

Byron
01-19-2009, 05:06 PM
Quite right to say that , actually you show us another mistake - shifting the major power of the offensive in a town ( which even if taken won't resolve much of the problem as the oil fields will be free ) - a battle which was more for prestige and showing power to the enemy rather than a huge strategic target . Even if we imagine that the german forces were in Stalingrad and fully occupied it ( of course by the end of the fight it would be hard to say that this was city anymore rather a ground filled with ruins ) the oil in Baku will be still intact and working and i suspect the soviets will be still using it mainly with transport trough the Kaspian sea maybe instad of transit trough Stalingrad

The core problems of Stalingrad lay in the Fall Blau directive. The initial march to Stalingrad was viewed as being a rather simple scenario by the Germans. In fact, at one point, Hitler was so sure the city would be taken without a fight that he redirected mobile units down to the South via Rostov to support the drive to Baku (which caused huge traffic jam problems). The Russians were initially ready to give up the city (they didn't see it as that big a deal at first) but decided to reinforce once the Germans began tripping over themselves in the advance to it.

The winter didn't actually play a big part in Stalingrad. The Germans had learned their lesson in 1941 and were prepared for it this time.

Hitler was the biggest problem the Wehmacht faced. Going back to Blau, the plan was ridiculous to start with. The drive into the Caucasus was envisaged as an easier "part two" of the campaign. There would be little need of flank security (and there were a LOT of open flanks during the drive south but the fact that the main battlefield was in the city kept either side from reinforcing enough to take advantage of it) because the Russian would be defeated beforehand. Hitler was convinced the Russians had "shot their load" in the Kharkov offensive (which failed miserably) and was further convinced of that when Stalin and Zhukov ordered the units in the South to simply fall back instead of contest the German attack after Blau began. The Germans weren't bagging large numbers of Soviets so they didn't think there were large numbers left to "bag". Also, the Russians didn't reinforce right away because they still thought the main blow would come against Moscow. They believed that the attack in the South was either a feint or the Germans would advance on Moscow from the Voronezh area.

Once the Germans were in Stalingrad, they were stuck. They did almost take the entire city but it was a phyrric victory of sorts and a complete waste of resources. But the hedgehog that formed there after the Soviets encircled the city kept the Soviet armies from advancing to cut off the German troops in the Caucasus.

Overall, the entire concept of Fall Blau was self-defeating from the start. It did not have the potential to cripple the Russian army (as has been pointed out, the Russians could have rerouted the oil they produced) nor would the oil fields aid the German army (at least in the short run). It stretched the Germans beyond their supply capacity and forced them to rely on poorly equipped Romanian and Italian armies to cover their flanks. It was a FUBAR from the start! Of course, hindsight is 20/20..... ;)

sam davis
01-21-2009, 08:55 AM
flamethrower guy....this is sam davis...and you are totally right uncoordinated would have led to death but to have marched in more or less no winter wear...rags..and to be kept imprisoned till 1955..at one point i read that when general manstein in his attempt..to save 6th army...through testimony..that some of the soilders...could see..the flares..of manteins army...that would have been the time to breakout....also..at that point they where about 40 miles away...thanks

Chevan
01-26-2009, 03:49 AM
In the end, though, the Red Army's average soldier might not have been as experienced or skilled as a German one (pure assumption of historians, everybody is an individual and should be treated as such), but the superior number would have broken the Wehrmacht's back sooner or later, I'm quite positive about that.
.
The entire problem that actualy was mentioned by historians that i've read- it was that in Stalingrad German Wermachs lost their operational and tatical advantage over Red Army.
In fact the close city battle, fight for every next house down to street , frost and lack of food made the German army to waste their resources in vain.
In fact the Red Army soldiers did have the superiority in close partisan tactic, fighting with well equiped, but poorly managed nad manevreable ( in literal sense) due to frost German army.
BTW the gernaral Vasiliy Chuikov- famouse commander of Defence of Stalingrad has succesfully aplied their experience of urban combat later, during battle do Berlin and Koenigsberg .

Schuultz
01-26-2009, 06:56 AM
Also, I was wondering how wide-spread the PPsh sub-machine gun was during Stalingrad? I know that many Germans were still using their Mausers, and a Bolt-Action rifle is obviously pretty unhandy in Close Quarters...

Ivaylo
01-28-2009, 11:16 AM
Also, I was wondering how wide-spread the PPsh sub-machine gun was during Stalingrad? I know that many Germans were still using their Mausers, and a Bolt-Action rifle is obviously pretty unhandy in Close Quarters...

Well i think there was even german soldiers who used PPsh instead of MP-40 or Mauser during the battle which i think speak well about it's qualities .Even in the german film "stalingrad " (1993) there is such scene in it .;)

Nickdfresh
01-28-2009, 02:45 PM
Well i think there was even german soldiers who used PPsh instead of MP-40 or Mauser during the battle which i think speak well about it's qualities .Even in the german film "stalingrad " (1993) there is such scene in it .;)

And there were Red Army soldiers that used the MP-40, entire squads or platoons of them apparently...

Chevan
01-28-2009, 11:14 PM
The Red Army used the booty MP-40 very often, but not when the frost reaches the -30 C.
I 've read , the first time the German rifle and mashin-guns didn't "wish to work" :) was in december of 1941 during the battle of Moscow.

colonel hogan
01-28-2009, 11:15 PM
all i have to say is..... VASSILLI ZAITSEV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rising Sun*
01-29-2009, 12:25 AM
all i have to say is..... VASSILLI ZAITSEV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your signature "pyle, what is your major malfunction, son???????????" is remarkably apt.

Chevan
01-29-2009, 02:10 AM
Your signature "pyle, what is your major malfunction, son???????????" is remarkably apt.
Just like the place whre is he from:D
Stalag 13

Ivaylo
01-30-2009, 07:12 AM
Just like the place whre is he from:D
Stalag 13

I didn't knew that there is such place these day called Stalag 13 ..... :D

Rising Sun*
01-30-2009, 07:28 AM
I didn't knew that there is such place these day called Stalag 13 ..... :D

There are many things colonel hogan doesn't know but, unfortunately, in the fullness of time he will probably put most of them on this forum. :rolleyes:

Ivaylo
01-31-2009, 07:48 AM
There are many things colonel hogan doesn't know but, unfortunately, in the fullness of time he will probably put most of them on this forum. :rolleyes:

LOL imagine someone ask you : where are you from ??
You : oww what a stupid question .... of course from Stalag 13 :D:D

Nickdfresh
01-31-2009, 07:56 AM
Or from arrse his head is firmly implanted in...

Ivaylo
01-31-2009, 06:24 PM
Or from arrse his head is firmly implanted in...

Hmm that was a little bit rude .... :police:

brunoz
02-10-2009, 07:40 AM
Hi, there !! :)

One thing that should be considered is that the Red Army great blow went
down by easily routing the Italians and Rumanians, whom were very poorly
equipped and not exactly remarkable fighters, totally unable of being valid
opponents to the red avalanche. That part of the axis front was too weak
anyway, a sort of "invitation" for the Red Army.

The understanding that the encirclement was inevitable and Stalingrad lost,
could have saved the Germans men and equipment, both too precious to be
sacrificed in a hopeless effort. The Russians could afford to lose men, tanks,
aircraft, etc., the germans not, but they didn't quite pick this point.

Bye.
Bruno.

Ivaylo
02-11-2009, 12:19 PM
Hi, there !! :)

One thing that should be considered is that the Red Army great blow went
down by easily routing the Italians and Rumanians, whom were very poorly
equipped and not exactly remarkable fighters, totally unable of being valid
opponents to the red avalanche. That part of the axis front was too weak
anyway, a sort of "invitation" for the Red Army.

The understanding that the encirclement was inevitable and Stalingrad lost,
could have saved the Germans men and equipment, both too precious to be
sacrificed in a hopeless effort. The Russians could afford to lose men, tanks,
aircraft, etc., the germans not, but they didn't quite pick this point.

Bye.
Bruno.
Yep agree with you if there was german armies on the flanks of 6th army the situation may differ from what we know from history or maybe instead splitting armies ( one going for Stalingrad other to Baku ) Hitler had to concentrate on one single object .

DavisC12
02-13-2009, 08:58 PM
I agree as well.

Nickdfresh
02-14-2009, 06:35 AM
Hmm that was a little bit rude .... :police:



I knew Col Hogan, and sir, he was no Colonel Hogan!

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/144500/144968kPSO_w.jpg

Ivaylo
02-14-2009, 07:49 AM
I knew Col Hogan, and sir, he was no Colonel Hogan!

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/144500/144968kPSO_w.jpg

LOL this is getting more and more fun :lol:

lucianohara
06-05-2009, 04:58 AM
Hitler's fanatism and turning the battle of Stalingrad a personal affair between him and Stalin doomed the German 6th Army. The german army fought with valor and courage but the numbers, better equipment as well as Napoleon said "Don't fight many times with the same enemy because he will learn your Art of War" made the Red Army win and turn the tide of the war. Oh I forgot they also had Zhukov an extraordinary general, Paulus was good too but as a Chief of Staff man not as a field commander

lucianohara
06-05-2009, 05:02 AM
For Brunoz: Italians i agree they always have been bad soldiers but romanians had always fought with valour and courage lack of equipment amunition and let's admit good head commanders lead to their failure and i'm sure if you check records many more italians routed and deserted than romanians

Rising Sun*
06-05-2009, 05:17 AM
For Brunoz: Italians i agree they always have been bad soldiers

That is an unfair overgeneralisation. Many Italians fought well in WWI and WWII. Their good units were as good as any other nation's.

The problem for Italian soldiers was often a lack of commitment to the national cause, which reflects political and other divisions in Italian society, not a lack of courage or potential military ability.

Schuultz
06-05-2009, 09:27 AM
Quick off-shoot question: At what point was Italy reunited from the many small nation-states to the entirety of Italy?

Rising Sun*
06-05-2009, 10:17 AM
Quick off-shoot question: At what point was Italy reunited from the many small nation-states to the entirety of Italy?

I wasn't aware it had happened yet, which tends to be supported by the disastrous history of the brief supposedly national Italian governments since WWII. ;) :D

The Vatican is still stuck in the middle of Italy as a separate state. This makes about as much sense as having a religious state stuck in the middle of America which isn't subject to national customs and laws. Such as Utah. ;) :D

Nominally there was a sort of unification under the King around 1860 after one of Garibaldi's excursions to redress Sicilian corruption (hard to believe, I know, but the Sicilians were crooks and brigands then :rolleyes: ).

Then, and this is the Franks' or the Germans' fault, it all got bound up with Bismarck and one of the Napoleons which resulted in French? Austrian? German? troops being withdrawn from Italy to fight someone somewhere else and the Italians did a sneak attack on the undefended Vatican or Rome or somewhere and Bingo! Mussolini was born.

(This historical summary has not been certified as accurate or even vaguely reliable by anyone with a brain.)

Schuultz
06-05-2009, 10:48 AM
(This historical summary has not been certified as accurate or even vaguely reliable by anyone with a brain.)

Ah, ok... my brain was just about to explode...

I'm pretty sure that Mussolini was waaayy past any Napoleon, though Bismarck could still be right.

The war you were talking about must be the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859 - though I'm pretty sure Bismarck wasn't involved as only France and Sardinia fought against Austria.

EDIT: According to Wiki, the Italian unification started in 1815 and ended in 1871, when Prussia shut out France through its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. So Bismarck was kind of involved, after all...

Rising Sun*
06-05-2009, 10:58 AM
I'm pretty sure that Mussolini was waaayy past any Napoleon, though Bismarck could still be right.

It's not important to us Anglos.

They're all Continental, so who cares what brand they are, or when they arose?:D


I'm The war you were talking about must be the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859 - though I'm pretty sure Bismarck wasn't involved as only France and Sardinia fought against Austria.

A refreshing absence of German military advisers which, alas, was not apparent in places as varied as Mexico and China in later years. :D


I'm EDIT: According to Wiki, the Italian unification started in 1815 and ended in 1871, when Prussia shut out France through its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. So Bismarck was kind of involved, after all...

Hah!

I knew Bismarck was involved somewhere! :D

Schuultz
06-05-2009, 11:11 AM
A refreshing absence of German military advisers which, alas, was not apparent in places as varied as Mexico and China in later years.

I don't wanna split hairs here, but technically, back then, Austrians would still be considered Germans.


It's not important to us Anglos.

They're all Continental, so who cares what brand they are, or when they arose?

It isn't our fault that you Anglos are ignorant to any place that you couldn't enslave or send your prisoners to. :D;)


Hah!

I knew Bismarck was involved somewhere!

Lucky guess ;). There's like a 50% chance of Bismarck being involved in any event occurring in Europe between 1850-1900. :D

Rising Sun*
06-05-2009, 11:20 AM
I don't wanna split hairs here, but technically, back then, Austrians would still be considered Germans.



It isn't our fault that you Anglos are ignorant to any place that you couldn't enslave or send your prisoners to. :D;)



Lucky guess ;). There's like a 50% chance of Bismarck being involved in any event occurring in Europe between 1850-1900. :D

:mrgreen: