How important was Stalingrad

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Yeah right! We all can remember the glorious British victory at Arnhem!

Arnhem was a victory of sort as the Allies still reached the Rhine. They lost an airborne division in the process, so what ? Small price. :drunk:

[rcristi]

QUOTE

QUOTE Yeah right! We all can remember the glorious British victory at Arnhem! Arnhem was a victory of sort as the Allies still reached the Rhine. They lost an airborne division in the process, so what ? Small price. :drunk:

No way Jose! The main objective of Operation Market Garden was the capture of a bridge over the Rhine not just reaching it. If you like, you can consider this a "great" victory...
:mrgreen:

... and you skipped my previous "question"... 1600 destroyed soviet tanks at Kursk... how many more damaged :?:

Cheers

[dragos]

QUOTE

QUOTE Definitely the turning point of the war was the end of 1942, with the two decisive defeats at El Alamein and Stalingrad. Churchill said \"before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat.\" Compared with Stalingrad, El Alamein was just a joke. You cannot consider El Alamein a turning point in WW2 because it didn't affect in a serious way the capacity of German armed forces as a whole as Stalingrad did. El Alamein was important for the british morale and is considered a turning point today just to counter ballance the Soviet achievements on the Eastern front. The WW2 was won (or lost) on the Eastern front. Cheers

I agree that the the two fronts cannont be compared in scale, but the defeat at El Alamein was just another front lost and severe losses in equipment (30 tanks remaining out of several hundreds). Rommel insisted on complete withdraw from N.Africa but Hitler refused. These two great victories of the Allies and Soviet Union showed clearly that Wehrmacht can be defeated, in spite of the image created in the previous years. The afirmation of Churchill is rather a figure of style which reflects the changing of initiative, in favor of the Allies, from then on.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

No way Jose! The main objective of Operation Market Garden was the capture of a bridge over the Rhine not just reaching it. If you like, you can consider this a \"great\" victory... :mrgreen:

Reaching, crossing... we are playing with words The allies could have build a tunnel under the Rhine if it has been necessary or simply pumped the water out of the river for easier crossing 8)

QUOTE

... and you skipped my previous \"question\"... 1600 destroyed soviet tanks at Kursk... how many more damaged :?:

Ah. Everybody skip that one. No data is available (or has been released) . But it is generally admitted that the German tank recovery system was exceptional compared to that of the Soviets. How many Soviet tanks damaged ? I would say, mmm.... 2 or 3...maybe 3,5. All the rest must having flaming, smoking unsalvagable wrecks !

[rcristi]

QUOTE

...severe losses in equipment (30 tanks remaining out of several hundreds). Rommel insisted on complete withdraw from N.Africa but Hitler refused. These two great victories of the Allies and Soviet Union showed clearly that Wehrmacht can be defeated, in spite of the image created in the previous years. The afirmation of Churchill is rather a figure of style which reflects the changing of initiative, in favor of the Allies, from then on.

In my point of view, El Alamein was a great victory (the first?) for the British forces, but not a decisive one, DAK was still a fighting force for months to come. On the African front, what I consider decisive is the Operation Torch.

Cheers

[rcristi]

QUOTE

QUOTE No way Jose! The main objective of Operation Market Garden was the capture of a bridge over the Rhine not just reaching it. If you like, you can consider this a \"great\" victory... :mrgreen: Reaching, crossing... we are playing with words The allies could have build a tunnel under the Rhine if it has been necessary or simply pumped the water out of the river for easier crossing 8) QUOTE ... and you skipped my previous \"question\"... 1600 destroyed soviet tanks at Kursk... how many more damaged :?: Ah. Everybody skip that one. No data is available (or has been released) . But it is generally admitted that the German tank recovery system was exceptional compared to that of the Soviets. How many Soviet tanks damaged ? I would say, mmm.... 2 or 3...maybe 3,5. All the rest must having flaming, smoking unsalvagable wrecks !

:loool: I rest my case in face of irefutable evidence that you provided... Arnhem was a great Allied victory.
:cheers: Happy now???

[Brotherhoodofthecross]

I have watched not long ago a documentary about the russian offesive starting with Stalingrad. The speaker an English military historian (I forgot his name) said that at Stalingrad the Germans lost mainly men but the real loss happened at Kursk/Prokhorovka where they lost so many AV that they never where able to recover. The idea is that no matter what was the agreed number of losses or the ratio (S/G) the loss experienced by the German tropps at those two battles was simply more than they cood afford. And that with a booming russian production. From my point of view Kursk was the turning point because of the loss of AVs and failure to gain "momentum" and create a new myth (of the "technical German Ubermensch" this time) with the new panzers.

And looking at the Hitler's involvment throughout the Southern campaign the outcome was so predictible.

[rcristi]

You can replace the material losses but the humans no... On top of that at Stalingrad the Axis lost not only lots of tanks but lots of artillery pieces, aircrafts, and others with no possibility of recover.

[Brotherhoodofthecross]

QUOTE

You can replace the material losses but the humans no... On top of that at Stalingrad the Axis lost not only lots of tanks but lots of artillery pieces, aircrafts, and others with no possibility of recover.

It's been a while since the number of the soldiers were the most important thing in determining the outcome of the battle. The quality and the quantity of the weapons are more important lately. And if there is a well set training program any average civilian can become a good soldier. Combined of course with eficient propaganda. Just look at the soviet losses in the battle of Berlin, although hard to find the exact numbers everyone agrees: they were enormous.
In a conflict only a fraction of the population is actually sent on the front and only when you have two realy uneven nations fighting (for a while) this becomes decisive. (As it should have been in the Russian-Finish conflict :wink: )

At Kursk the Germans not only that lost a significant perncentage of their AVs but also the chance to reabilitate their image which was so badly shaken after Stalingrad. A much bigger loss than the men and material altogether.
And the funny thing they are still trying to do that (polish their image ). But that's human nature, I guess.

[Siniestro]

There's no single decisive battle where war is won and lost, with the possible exception of Midway, rather, you have a chain of events.

Yes, Stalingrad was a disaster for the Germans, not in terms of Panzers, that after all, had to be replaced by newer models as they became obsolete, but in terms first and foremost of personnel and other equipment. One of the worst consequences was the loss of so many transport aircraft and experienced pilots in the ill-fatted attempt at aerial resuply. Many of the Ju-52 pilots were flight instructors and this started the degradation of Luftwaffe pilot training. Planes can be replaced, but pilots take many months to train.

Stalingrad was the turning point in the Eastern Front, if it was not more decisive is because of Manstein brilliant retreat and counterattack at Kharkov. Kursk was the second decisive battle, the grave of the Panzers. Again, defeat was delayed because Speer took over war production and managed to cover the Wehrmacht losses, but Germany had already lost the war ,and after the third and most decisive defeat inflicted by Operation Bagration, it was only a matter of time until the Red Army arrived to Berlin.

Now, Stalingrad must be put in context, even before Stalingrad German casualties on the Eastern front were over 1.5 million, without the losses suffered during Barbarossa and the Russian winter offfensive , Stalingrad wouldn't have happened. The casualties at Stalingrad were major, but not as bad as Verdun or the Somme, but its impact was more significant because the Germans were already stretched thin. As big as the material and human losses were, the moral impact was even more decisive.

Now, the western allies did inflict a severe defeat to the Germans before D-Day, but it was not at El Alamein, but rather on the surrender at Tunis of the Axis forces, 130,000 germans were made prisoner. The Italian front just tied down a few divisions, and by the time of Overlord, the Germans were in retreat in the East.

[Chandernagore]

>As big as the material and human losses were, the moral impact was even more decisive.

I agree with this. The material losses were limited. Human losses were heavier but the moral loss could not be made up. Stalingrad meant this : good bye to the dream of vanquishing the Soviet Union. Thereafter the Germans were only playing the game for a draw. I think that everybody realized this but nobody was talking about it Hitler's close circle of "yes" men.

[rcristi]

Before Kursk I've heard that were some sort of negociations between Germans and Soviets to end the war. My question is if the only thing that Germans could hope on EF was a draw, why they didn't signed a peace treaty in '43? Maybe the answer is simple... Hitler!!!

Cheers

[Chandernagore]

I think the answer was Stalin. He did waver for a very short time in 43 but eventually he made up his mind to win the whole prize. His generals pushed him toward the final solution too.

[Bernard Miclescu]

[quote]Now, the western allies did inflict a severe defeat to the Germans before D-Day, but it was not at El Alamein, but rather on the surrender at Tunis of the Axis forces, 130,000 germans were made prisoner. The Italian front just tied down a few divisions, and by the time of Overlord, the Germans were in retreat in the East.[/quote]

wasn't this battle a stategic victory? Hitler didn't want to let N Africa so he sent there number of Panzers and men from... the Kursk area. The battle of Kursk was lost in the same time to Tunis battle. w Allies stopped thier advance at Tunis letting the Germans to bring more and more forces from the eastern front weaking the front of Kursk.

For the troops morale the turning point of the war was Stalingrad but the real disaster came after the Kursk/Tunis battles.

Bm

[petru]

[quote]wasn't this battle a stategic victory? Hitler didn't want to let N Africa so he sent there number of Panzers and men from... the Kursk area. The battle of Kursk was lost in the same time to Tunis battle. w Allies stopped thier advance at Tunis letting the Germans to bring more and more forces from the eastern front weaking the front of Kursk. [/quote]

Tunis was before Kursk. Kursk was fought in summer. Towards the end of the battle Hitler retreated the 2nd Panzer Corp to fight the British in Sicily, but it was actualy sent back in Russia and except some parts of the "Adolf Hitler" Division, it didn't reach Italy.