Stalingrad or North Africa?

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Sarmat     If the US didn't join the war and Moscow fell, you would see the Japanese in Irkutsk before the summer of 42. With Russia on two fronts no way would they have survived.

Hello Sarmat

Originally posted by Sarmat   Collapse of the front in 1943 is just an unrealistic fantazy. German strike in 1941 was much stronger and the Soviet Army in 1941 was much weaker yet it didn't result in German victory. A local success in Kursk would just postpone the war nothing more.

Though a complete Soviet collapse in any situation was highly unlikely, a strategic German victory at Kursk similar to the Kiev encirclement would not have been easily absorbed. This level of German victory and follow on advances could have led to stalemate and cease fire on the Eastern Front.

The Western Allies would then have to make the decision to either negotiate or to move D-day from June 1944 to say September 1943. The American high command had done a planning study of a 1943 hasty D-Day / Soviet collapse scenario and concluded that D-Day would be successful but very, very costly. The Western allies, very accustumed, to relatively light casualties then may have decided to negotiate a peace.

In short, a strategic German victory at Kursk (almost mathemtically impossible) could have tied the war for Germany.

Originally posted by Sarmat   This is again just a baseless speculation which complitely doesn't make sense. Why would Stalin transfer forces to a remote region without stragegic importance while there was a direct threat to the real vital centers of the USSR?

Stalin would not do it in 1943 simply because he had started to accept strategic guidiance from his professional Generals in the Stavka. The speculation, however is not baseless. Prior to the Stalingrad victory, Stalin had shown he was more than willing to ignore conventional wisdom when acting on his paranoid or "military genius" fantasies. Stalin's actions in the early days of the war or before the war did not always make sense.  Why would Stalin imprison or kill thousands of loyal Soviet professional officers on completely baseless, paranoia? 


Edited by Cryptic - 02-Jan-2009 at 13:49

BTW regarding the possible "Second fronts against the USSR." I think what really would have had very hard consequences for the USSR is a possible attack of Turkey in 1942.

Although both were quite terrible for Germany, I think Stalingrad was worse. What was it, like 1 million casualties for the Germans? The Russians lost a lot too, but they could replace their dead; Germany couldn't. Also, taking the Caucasus was the last realistic chance Hitler had of taking Russia. the loss of troops puts Stalingrad over the top, far over El Alemein.

Stalingrad but I thought the Germans had to pull some Panzer divisions to support Operation Barbossa. But the Germans were never interested in North Africa its just the Italians could not win or really defend so the Germans had to help. 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello to you all Actually when we consider the irrecoverable losses in terms of man power (both dead and POW), both Stalingrad and the battle for North Africa (c. Nov 42-May 43) they are quite close with Stalingrad having a bit higher toll than NA in terms of casualties. On the other hand when we consider the material loss in both campaigns there is simply no compasiron, the Germans lost much more material in NA than in Stalingrad. In fact the Germans lost almosta quarter of their total armour, an entire air fleet (1100 planes) of fighters and bombers and thousands of guns. Also unlike the Stalingrad campaign, the soldiers who were lost in NA were 1st rate fresh troops veterans of the eastern front and these were not killed as in Stalingrad, they were POW's. Most of the divisions in Stalingrad however were already skeleton formations, a shadow of their past glory, before the battle even begun.   Stalingrad's effect was more of a psychological blow since the loss of so many troops in such a small period of time was quite hard to swallow.   As for Kursk had it been a German victory, well I think the Germans had enough resources to actually rebuild their economy and forces during the stalemate resulting after the loss of Kursk. Remember, they only turned their economy into a war economy only that summer and managed in the last 2 years of the war to hastely conscript some 4 million additional troops many were from their occupied territories.    Al-Jassas

North Africa was secondary and there were no elite formations there, period. the main effect of North Africa was the loss of Italy as an ally, that was a strategic nuisance as it kept additional troops tied in Italy for the remainder of the war. but the same is true for the Western Allies so no big deal. the losses in NA were unfortunate but due to Italy they had to be supported (again). considdering the efforts that were needed to remove the Axis from Africa it was a well spent effort. as Majkes already said, Stalingrad was a matter of months and a single Army was lost, the first German Army lost at all.

and again no elite troops.

Originally posted by Sparten 21st, 15th and 10th Panzer were all elite troops. Most of the divisions that made up Army Group Africa at the time of capitualtion were elite troops. Stalingrad was a campaign. As was N Africa from Nov 42 to May 43.   The losses were both heavy, but the ones in Africa (these included some of the first Tiger Battalions) were more critical.

none of those Divisions were elite, they were not elite just because they were armorued Divisions. in Stalingrad the 14th, 16th and 24th armoured Divisions also were destroyed. so in regards to armoured formations, the losses were equal. Stalingrad was a battle like El-Alamein and part of a bigger campaign. check your facts. btw Germans never used the word "Blitzkrieg", this was a tabloid of the Anglo-Saxon newspapers.

Kursk was the largest tank battle right??