Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (4) « First ... 2 3 [4] ( Go to first unread post ) |
PaulC |
Posted: December 19, 2012 01:25 pm
|
||||||
Sergent Group: Members Posts: 159 Member No.: 3290 Joined: April 19, 2012 |
Let's go back to the original plan : the Wehrmacht intended to conquer the Caucasus in 1942 for its oil fields with the flank on the Volga, nothing about conquering Stalingrad. That was the plan embodied in Directive 41. Hitler later made the huge mistake of splitting the forces, aiming to take both the Caucasus and Stalingrad and in the end getting fixated on Stalingrad, depleting forces heading for the Caucasus of mobile units. What I'm proposing was for them to stick to the original plan. The capture of Stalingrad wasn't deemed necessary and I fully agree. Artillery and aviation could annihilate any production of weapons in the city and prevent the soviets from using the Volga as a transport route. 90% of the oil that supplied the Soviet Union went through the Caspian Sea on the Volga and then was distributed west and east of the Urals. With the Volga blocked, the Soviet Union would have been paralyzed. Secondly, by concentrating more mobile units in the south, they could have probably conquered the Caucasus given the anti-soviet insurgencies going on there. |
||||||
dragos |
Posted: December 19, 2012 05:28 pm
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Having the goal of reaching as far as Baku, IMO Stalingrad needed to be secured. It could have served as a base for launching an attack towards Rostov, threatening to trap all the German armies in Caucasus. The plan without securing Stalingrad was feasible only in the scenario the Red Army was collapsing and not able to launch any more major offensives.
|
Taz1 |
Posted: December 19, 2012 09:07 pm
|
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 107 Member No.: 2414 Joined: March 05, 2009 |
In many of the articles regarding Stalingrad it is said that the Stalingrad defeat was the single most important victory of the red army in the east that they more or less won the war with Germany there but the even after the dezaster in Stalingrad german army was far from being defeted and the rusian army far from Berlin. German army totally lost the war in Russia only in sumer of 1944 . So expresion the day that change the war or world ( the begining of the russian Stalingrad ofensive ) it is not qiute exact.
|
MMM |
Posted: December 19, 2012 09:46 pm
|
||
General de divizie Group: Members Posts: 1463 Member No.: 2323 Joined: December 02, 2008 |
... and securing without actually occupying it would have meant quite a lot of troops! I'm somehow glad that given the Romanian performances at Odessa, the Wehrmacht hadn't allotted the task of besieging Stalingrad to us! Back on topic: Taz, the expression is correct, because it destroyed a myth: the myth of Wehrmacht's invincibility and of the Red Army's incapacity of sustaining a victorious offensive! And those facts were obvious there and then, for all the sides involved. -------------------- M
|
||
PaulC |
Posted: December 20, 2012 08:55 am
|
||||
Sergent Group: Members Posts: 159 Member No.: 3290 Joined: April 19, 2012 |
They did not trap Army Group A even with the disaster at Stalingrad. The 6th army had to means to conduct a serious defense on the Don-Stalingrad-Volga line. I believe the original plan was sound. That would have left the 4th Panzer able to help Army Group A. Secondly, if the real push was in the Caucasus, I'd expect the German army to conquer the major ports and be supplied from Constanta by ship. A much better alternative than the roadless south Russia.
|
||||
Taz1 |
Posted: December 20, 2012 09:49 pm
|
||||
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 107 Member No.: 2414 Joined: March 05, 2009 |
The german army invincibility mith was destroed in 1941 at the gates of Moscow.Regarding Stalingrad the conquest was a must from all poit of view economic, militar, propaganda. The plan put on paper at the begining of the 1942 was one thing and the situation on the field was another thing. One of the german hope was to surond to trap large concentrations of soviet troops and destroed like 1941 but with some exceptions this was never done the russian had lerned their lessons and conserv their forces chosen to resist in strongholds like stalingrad all so with the ideea in mind of a later contraofensive. A german general said about one of the aspects of the german advans in Russia in 1942 ,, Befor me me no enemy and behind me no rezerve". |
||||
Imperialist |
Posted: January 04, 2013 10:31 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
We can say that now, in 2013, but at that time it wasn't so. At the time the myth survived into 1942 too. -------------------- I
|
||
cainele_franctiror |
Posted: January 04, 2013 11:06 am
|
Sublocotenent Group: Members Posts: 449 Member No.: 334 Joined: September 01, 2004 |
last issue of Military History Review (Romanian) has articles about Stalingrad Battle
http://www.mapn.ro/diepa/ispaim/files/rim_5-6_2012.pdf |
ANDREAS |
Posted: January 04, 2013 01:47 pm
|
Locotenent colonel Group: Members Posts: 814 Member No.: 2421 Joined: March 15, 2009 |
Thank you! Interesting articles indeed!
|
MMM |
Posted: January 04, 2013 03:28 pm
|
||||
General de divizie Group: Members Posts: 1463 Member No.: 2323 Joined: December 02, 2008 |
However, the "myth" of defeating every enemy did shatter! -------------------- M
|
||||
Imperialist |
Posted: January 04, 2013 04:38 pm
|
||||||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
Indeed. Although Britain was still undefeated. I think it's more accurate to say that the myth of the blitzkrieg was the one that died in 1941, but at the time many were expecting the German Army to prevail in 1942 after "General Winter" was about to stop supporting the Soviets. This post has been edited by Imperialist on January 04, 2013 04:39 pm -------------------- I
|
||||||
ANDREAS |
Posted: January 04, 2013 04:57 pm
|
||
Locotenent colonel Group: Members Posts: 814 Member No.: 2421 Joined: March 15, 2009 |
No doubt about this, I agree, and even say that consequences of withdrawal of Wechrmacht forces from Moscow were long-ranged! I have in mind the fact that Hitler became obsessed with the idea of preventing the withdrawal of its forces with the famous "Haltebefehl" (Stop command) from 16.12.1941, in which he forbade any backward movement without the explicit permission, fearing that the whole front could fall apart. He demanded of the battered troops "fanatical resistance", as several times during the battle of Stalingrad. The consequences were therefore long term... |
||
MMM |
Posted: January 05, 2013 09:51 am
|
||
General de divizie Group: Members Posts: 1463 Member No.: 2323 Joined: December 02, 2008 |
Well, then it worked, preventing a withdrawal with hundreds of kilometers... Perhaps just a lucky strike, one of the last... Other consequences were (IMO) the "end of resistance" among the Wehrmacht's generals. -------------------- M
|
||
Petre |
Posted: March 04, 2020 06:18 am
|
Locotenent colonel Group: Members Posts: 894 Member No.: 2434 Joined: March 24, 2009 |
|
Florin |
Posted: March 22, 2020 03:18 am
|
General de corp de armata Group: Members Posts: 1879 Member No.: 17 Joined: June 22, 2003 |
In a documentary a German narrated that immediately after the Soviet pincers closed behind Stalingrad, there was an order to prepare to break the encirclement. They also received the order to destroy the storage that could not be carried, to not be left behind. They were in middle of destroying the non-transportable stuff, when a counter-order was received, to stay where they were.
It was not commented in the documentary, but I thought that later they may had regretted everything that they destroyed when they prepared for breakthrough. |
Pages: (4) « First ... 2 3 [4] |