All,
I just saw a program on the History channel about Stalingrad. My big question is, why the heck didn't the Germans encircle Stalinegrad, force a river crossing and cut the town off? Of all the books and programs I have seen, it seems this logical approach is never mentioned. Anyone with deeper knowledge your input would be appreciated.


Jim

Thats what they tried to do but they just didn't have the manpower/equipment to shift the Russians from the other side of the river or to stop them from reinforcing and resupplying the city.

They did. The problem is, the Russians simply encircled their encirclement.

Awwwww dang dude! I wuz gonna say that!

I personally think Stalingrad was a disaster completely due to the top command.  Paulus was directly pressured by "The Great Leader" to march in and take the city.  Hitler didn't want a long siege even if it resulted in eventual victory.  He thought the Wehrmacht should be able to waltz in and destroy the Russians.  However, Stalingrad is a long and narrow city running along a river.  This gave them at least a seven or eight mile front, fighting through dense urban areas.  This was much more easily defended than attacked.  If the Germans had instead crossed the Volga and completely encircled the city, their soldiers wouldn't have had to enter the urban areas until they were demolished by artillery and bombers along with everyone in those areas and the Russians would be completely unable to reinforce or resupply Stalingrad.  It was senseless to demolish an area and turn it into a cratered quagmire only to have it reoccupied with fresh troops and then have to fight through rubble and craters.  Assuming Paulus could have had free hand in the campaign (without Hitler ordering him to march straight into the city and not give up an inch of ground at any cost) and had the combat sense to effectively plan and execute a logical attack, Stalingrad could have been quickly cut off and captured.  This would have pushed the main battle away from urban areas, into the open country where the German's had proven their ability to defeat extremely unfavorable odds against the Russian armies.
Just my two cents.  (And I do admit that I am merely an amateur of history and it very easy to make conclusions long after a battle has been fought.)

The problem with the siege theory is the fact that the Germans already had one city (Leningrad) under a tight siege, and that was an utter failure as well. The Germans were simply too stretched out. Even if Hitler decided not to be a egotistical fool and demand for his generals to capture the city bearing Stalin's name for prestige, and bypass Stalingrad altogether and go to the Caucasus, the Soviets would have simply wore the Germans down until they could counter attack with a massive force.

Guys,
let me just tell you some facts for some more deeper understanding of the situation in 1942in Stalingrad.

1.On the one hand General Lopatin that comanded the 62-nd Army initialy was right keeping in mind the idea of giving up the city (later he was replaced for this). Defending Stalingrad was not giving Red Army anything: city was already destroyed, German Army reached Volga in the northern and southern parts of the city, having cut 62-nd Army from main forces. Strategically Red Army was not fearing the attemt of Germans tp force Volga-river. It was more dangereous if Germans were to spread with their 6th and 4th tank Armies along Volga-river, where Red Army was facing holes.
But besides military and war logics and on the other hand 62-th Army tied the enemy by close quater combat &amp; city battles. You, Guys, need to understand how strong that time was the ideology and you simply cannot brake the Order â„– 227 "No step Back!" Having CQB in place means Red Army posessed the initiative and the initiative ment that time atime-brake to get more force-reserves and fresh reinforcements and reiforcement regrouping. All these facts played for Red Army and against German Wermacht.</p>

2. Big plus at the beginning was that Wermacht was controlling the heights near Stalingrad and was bombarding the City day after day with its heavy artillery.</p>

3. Tactically it was decided to continue to weaken the enemy by close quater combats having converted each house, apartment building or even a store in the house into a fortress, by small groups infiltration - this is known as active defense methods. Secondly it was decided to prepare the counterstrike to change the situation in general. There were several big operations by Red Army that finally led to German's loss.</p>

4. And finally it was a big mistake by Adolf Hitler trusting German Gerring bravade, when he convinced furer that luftwaffe was easily to resupply Geman 6th Army with all neccessary stuff, medical stuff, ammo and food. Keitsler, taking into account Reithoffen knowledge, was against this but Hitler insisted finally on 6th Army stay in Stalingrad inspite of possibility saving a lot of German soldiers' lives.</p>

these were two different stories - Stalingrad WASCAPTURED, Leningrad - was seiged...

I fail to see how Stalingrad could have been captured, since The Soviets were still fighting desperately inside Stalingrad before the Soviets launched Operation Uranus. The Soviets never withdrew from Stalingrad, nor gave it up. If Stalingrad was truly captured, then the Axis forces could have continued on. But they couldn't, because they're still too busy fighting in Stalingrad.

And that's what I mean. People were wondering why the Germans simply did not set up a siege around Stalingrad. Well Leningrad was under siege for what, 3 years? And it was a failure as well.

Stalingrad was in a highly strategic location. The Germans could not simply leave it to the Soviet's hands, even if it was in rubble. It would expose their rear and will be a logistical nightmare. The one thing that Stalingrad gave to the Red Army was time. Time to mass forces, and weaken the Germans enough for a counter attack.

All you have to do is go into youtube and all the history episodes are there to see from the history chanel programs.You can watch hour upon hour upon hours of this war footage.Type in a battle and see what took place.....start to finish.

BIGMIG

One thing I found interesting was how many Germans was in Russia fighting at stalingrad and how few of them ever got back to germany by the end of WWII.It seems strange to me at times how most of the world seems to overlook the fact that WWII also included that "little battle that was going on in the pacific".()
Might look up how many people died in total in this war...................It is staggering to try to "comprehend".

there were over 60,000 Germans taken prisoner less than 5,000 returned

Germany's war effort took a nose dive the moment Hitler took control away from his generals in '41. They never wanted to invade Russia. They certainly didn't want to capture Stalingrad, a city with little strategic significance.

Hitler didn't know what he wanted in Russia and the Soviets exploited this. He refused to allow his generals to employ the kind of elastic offense and defense that had proven so effective in France and Africa. It was a religious thing for him. He had been warned numerous times about the over-extension of forces in the Caucuses and those officers had been labelled as defeatists.

When Manstein failed to break through the encirclement, he recommended to Paulus that he break out. He could have ordered him, being his superior, but he feared Hitler's wrath. He didn't make that mistake again at Kharkov.

I've studied this subject in some depth and ultimately, I don't see anyway the Germans could have wrestled anything resembling 'success' in Russia. They didn't have the forces to conquer or hold that much territory. Even if Hitler had ignored the Stalingrad bait, even if Typhoon had succeeded in '41, ultimately Soviet production, foreign aid and manpower superiority would have overwhelmed them.

It's really quite amazing that the Germans lasted as long as they did, and without a real war economy!

The only way (or so it seems to me) that the Russians could have maintained a fighting force in Stalingrad was by resupplying them across the Volga.  If the far side of the river was captured territory, Stalingrad would be a trapped pocket.  The fighting forces inside would not have been able to reform a cohesive fighting force under constant artillery bombardment and the greater part of the German army could have been free to deal with actual threats to itself.  I think if the 6th Army had crossed the river and fought the Russians on the other side, away from urban areas,  they could have maintained momentum and kept the Russians from regrouping. 
Any way you look at it, military action in urban (or any other civilian populated areas) ends badly for everyone involved (especially the civilians whose homes are destroyed, families and friends killed, etc...) and should probably be avoided if at all possible.

Lets say this nut job had been able to take russia,europe,and lets throw in china-(why not)My question was allways "what the hell was he going to do with them".

BIGMIG

Duke,
My supposition exactly. If they had taken the far bank and encircled Stalingrad from the other side of the river, Then, there would have been no defeat of the 6th Army at Stalingrad. It seems so obvious, but I have not seen it addressed in history books as why it didn't happen that way?


Jim

Because of flanks. That's why the Germans didn't do it. Their flanks were already vulnerable enough. If they tried to surround Stalingrad, then not only will their northern and southern flanks will be horribly exposed, but the Germans who would have held the eastern banks of the Volga would be fighting the Soviets forces still in Stalingrad, AND the Soviet forces in the eastern side of the Volga.

And the Germans didn't even have enough troops to fully capture Stalingrad, that's why they had to rely mainly on their weaker Axis allies to guard their flanks. Laying a siege generally means that you have an overwhelmingly numerical superiority over your enemy. The Germans had no such thing.

You are corret here partly.
You see the difference in the meanings CAPTUREand GIVINGUP.
Stalingrad was CAPTURED, but never GIVENUP, there were troops that were resupplyed from USSR east.
For Staligrad's capture standsthe fact of 6thArmy HDQlocation. It was in the center ofStalingrad - Squareof Fallen Fighters (Площадь Павших Борцов).How canArmy HDQbe located in the down town IFthe city isnot captured?

Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol, Belostok - were captured and given up (no army resistance on the territory), but Stalingrad was captured, but not guiven up - that is significant.

1) It was a strategic mistake to stay in Stalingrad for a long time, and Soviet Army strategically overwon Germans. If Germans change their plans and went to the south and to the north speading and concentrating istead of then this could bring a lot of problems to Red Army.
2) To set up the siege, as you say around, Germans MUSTcontrol 100% territory around the City, to block all the support. And this had NEVERhappened as the narrow beach of 100 meters wide was in the critical moment hold by Soviet Army. Germans were to take to make a circlebut failedto make it. Therefore it enabled Sovietr Armythen enlarge that platzdarmfor futheruse for reinforcements.

I was there in Volgograd several times, talking to our vets thereand saw all that I am speaking about now.

slight correction - 91 000 prisoners..
24 generals
2500 oficers.

Sevastopol was the scene of very heavy fighting. The Germans attempted to take the city numerous times but were beaten back by Soviet troops landed by sea. They were forced instead to siege the city, a siege that took 250 days! Even when they finally broke the back of the defenders, it took another month secure the city.

I would hardly call that 'no army resistance on the territory'.

It's also of note that Sevastopol delayed operation Blue and mauled the 11th army so badly that they would be in no position to help Paulus.

Interesting take on Sevastopol. Living here, I get a slightly different story, but it makes no difference. The city fell.

As Hal stated it was not a good idea for German's to hang around Stalingrad too long.  If they had captured the far bank of the river the forces left in Stalingrad would be completely cut off.  As for other sieges mentioned (ie: Sevastopol) they were still being re-supplied and reinforced (like Stalingrad) by water.  If the enemy forces across the river were forced into combat out in the open instead of being allowed to enter the city they could have been destroyed or routed from the area allowing the siege to continue effectively with fewer and fewer attacking troops needed.  The mass of the Germans could have continued on and protected itself and supply routes by engaging the enemy when possible and retreating (even as far as retreating across the Volga and, once again if Paulus had complete control of his army, to leave Stalingrad if necessary)  when the odds or conditions were unfavorable.  Possibly by the time the Russians could organize an effective counter attack (keeping in mind they now have an enemy army roving around to break up any such formation) Stalingrad could have been taken, occupied and turned into a German held defensive zone. 

Was there Red Army resistance after Germans captured the city?
(I would say Sevastopol is one city) Was there any Red Army resistance in Crimea just before the last attack on Sevastopol? No.
Loses from February to April 1942 by Crimean Front equal to 225000 people;8 may - 18 May 1942 loses are 175 000 people.

And in total before Germans started last attack on Sevastopol Red Army lost500'000people.

Sevastopol page is also oneofthe black and shame pages in Our Great Patriotic War history,because marshal Budjonny and admiral Oktyabrsky simplyleft(like cowards)40'000 soldiersand oficers savingtheir lives, simply betraying them.But I guess it will be another tred.

I guess you just have a different definition of captured from me. To me, the word captured means seizing something and you have full control of it. Take it this way. Let's say there was a robbery suspect that the police are chasing. Then suddenly, a police officer yelled over the radio, "I HAVE FINALLY CAPTURED THE SUBJECT!" And the rest of the police officers replied over the radio, "Great! did you have a hard time capturing him?"

Then the officer who "captured" the suspect replied, "Well....he's still punching and kicking me, trying to get away."

there are certain differences in words meanings... i see what u mean </p>

One never has full control of anything. When the Germans captured Krimea and Sevastopol, it was a true full capture. However, there was always some scattered resistance. For instance, there were in effect catacombs under the city, still there today, that the Germans never bothered to totally invest and capture. They simply plugged them up as best they could. To this day they are there, and to this day sealed, as no one has ever gone down there and totally cleaned them out. The cliffs around Inkerman at the foot of the harbor and Bachti Serei are honeycombed with caverns and rooms that the monks and hermits hewed out of the living rock over centuries, and the Germans never cleaned all them out either. Not worth the effort, either there or other places in Krim. Still and all, to all intents and purposes Sevastopol and Krimea fell to virtual total German control and occupation.

When Germany fell in May of 1945, the defeat was total. And there were incidents of resistance up to the early '50's....well hidden if possible by the occupying Allies, but there.