Battle of Stalingrad

[gusord]

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]

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]

I thought Beevor's work on the subject was pretty good...

[JR*]

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]

Thanks for the input Nick and JR,

I'll check on amazon and pickup a copy.

[Kilroy]

Well all I know is that its the turning point in the war for the Russians

[Chevan]

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]

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]

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]

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*]

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]

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]

not to mention Soviet artillery fiering across the Volga river..

[Chevan]

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]

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.