What if, Stalingrad mistakes

[Teapopper]

delete this thread.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Teapopper

Germany had about 300 000 men stationed in Norway in 1943, what if they moved 100 000 troops to Stalingrad or Leningrad to take one of the cities, or use them as reserves on the eastern front.
Britain could not attack Norway in 42-43 when they had 200 000 defenders, it woud have the same result as Italy, bogged down and good terrain for defenders

Some interesting points
but 100,000 troops moved to either city would probably have been 100,000 more troops into the meat-grinder, it might have taken the Soviets longer but I think they would have managed it.
Getting tied up in a slugging match with any strongly defended installation (or city) was an anathema to the principles of blitzkrieg which emphasised going around any such installations and continuing on to take the 'keys' to the territory. The now-isolated pockets of resistance can then either come to their senses and surrender, or starve and surrender.
The German forces would have been freed up to do what the Wehrmacht was trained for - battlefield engagements, as well as interdicting relief attempts on the surrounded cities.
With the initiative thus largely handed back to the German commanders as to how they were going to defeat the enemy, it could have been a different outcome.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Teapopper

delete this thread.

lol thanks

[Soren]

????

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Soren

????

Some interesting points were posted concerning mistakes made by the Germans in the Soviet Union.
I selected a portion as a quote and responded. When I came out of my reply, he'd deleted his original post.

[parsifal]

Certainly the germans had an oversupply of units deployed on the Norwegian Coast defence, but these units were severely lacking in mobility and in no way could be considered combat worthy. Like the units in France they were usually organized on a two regiment basis with just two battalions per regiment. Motor transport was virtually non-existent, and horse transport was down to about 30% what was required for mobile operation in the east. I havent checked, but I will bet the artillery and other heavy weapons was obsolete and down to about 50% or less of establishment

Sending troops like this to the east in that state of readiness would have been suicide for those men. They needed time to be ade ready for action, and amajor injection of manpower, since many of the troops were over-age or unfite, and short of establishment strengths anyway. The tanks stationed in Norway all suffered from faulty transmissions

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Why did he delete his posting? He couldn't handle somebody putting holes in his theory?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Wow don't understand what happened here. Thread stays open...

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Wow don't understand what happened here. Thread stays open...

Shame he didn't leave his original post up, he made some interesting points

[Juha]

Agree with Parsifal
many of the German troops in Norway were older ones and rather poorly equipped, especially their vehicle allocations were low. When the main Pz unit there, future 25th PzD, was decided to sent to East in late 43, it was first to sent to France via Denmark to be made Eastern front capable, that took a while, even if the unit was one of the best equipped in Norway, and when the time of deployment was forwarded because of the critical situation in the East, the div suffered badly at first, partly because of peacemeal deployment but also partly because of they were still bit unprepared to what was waiting them.

Juha

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Colin1

Shame he didn't leave his original post up, he made some interesting points

Agreed, but there is still plenty that can be discussed on this topic. Besides maybe he will return and re-post it.

[RabidAlien]

What-ifs are always fun. Wish he'd kept it up....hope he's not a one-post wonder!

[wheelsup_cavu]

Originally Posted by RabidAlien

What-ifs are always fun. Wish he'd kept it up....hope he's not a one-post wonder!

I have to agree RA.

I am looking forward to watching/reading where this thread goes.


Wheels

[GrauGeist]

Good point, Colin.

If the Wehrmacht had stayed out of the city and the inevitable meat-gringer, they may have had a far better shot at taking it. Urban warfare is best suited to the defenders, and the ancient art of laying seige should have been the focus in this case.

[Juha]

Hello Geist
the problem was that Germans didn't have assests to allow them crossing the Volga, so they could not encircle the city. They tried to interdict the traffic across the river as well as the could, but even if they had squeezed Soviets into tight bridgehead, that wasn't enough to stop the traffic. If Soviets have had much large area in the western bank, interdiction would have been clearly less effective and isolation is important part of siegecraft. Of course late Nov Nature would have delivered a week/couple weeks isolation of Stalingrad, but that was predictable to Soviets.

Juha