Stalingrad?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

We're forgetting the impact that the fall of Stalingrad would have on Russian morale and internal politics.

1941 had been an absolute disaster for the Russians, and 1942 hadn't exactly been the annus mirabilis either. Leningrad was still under siege and despite the gains made around Rzhev, the Germans had still managed to come up trumps at 2nd Kharhov. A great deal of the Soviet Union was still under German/Axis occupation.

Stalin was throwing the kitchen sink into defending the city with his name. If it had fallen, it's easy to see that a sense of defeatism could have crept into the Soviet High Command - they'd thrown the Germans back from Moscow, but the Germans had bounced back and Case Blau looked like it was going to be 1941 all over again.

Stalin knew that the GPW was a fight for his own life, let alone anything else, so the most likely scenario would be a coup that puts him out of the picture and sends overtures of terms to the Germans allowing the Soviets to cut their losses and run for the Urals to bide their time.

Khrushchev, probably more than any other Soviet figure, was ideally placed to judge both the military and the political situation during the Battle of Stalingrad. If he says that the Soviet Union would have collapsed if the city had fallen, I'd be inclined to take his word for it. Granted - with a pinch of salt: it does his reputation and ego no harm to be known to have been involved in the battle that decided the fate of the Soviet Union.

All good points, but I'm just not sure the Soviets would have folded upon losing the battle. After all even if they had lost the city they still put a hurtin' on the German war machine. There was still the idological battle to consider, Nazism vs. Communism. Just MHO.


Consider the bid against Hitler's life in Germany in 1944, sparked off by Operation Overlord, with the fuel provided by a long series of German military defeats.

It's quite easy to draw comparisons with the Soviet Union in 1941 - with the shambles of the Red Army in 1941 and the failure to hold Stalingrad in 1942 providing the motivation for some of the Soviet High Command to seriously consider replacing Stalin.
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by rustysi »

It's quite easy to draw comparisons with the Soviet Union in 1941 - with the shambles of the Red Army in 1941 and the failure to hold Stalingrad in 1942 providing the motivation for some of the Soviet High Command to seriously consider replacing Stalin.

Don't doubt for one minute that Stalin would have been history, may have been one of the best things to ever happen to the Soviet people. Just don't believe the country would have given up.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: rustysi
It's quite easy to draw comparisons with the Soviet Union in 1941 - with the shambles of the Red Army in 1941 and the failure to hold Stalingrad in 1942 providing the motivation for some of the Soviet High Command to seriously consider replacing Stalin.

Don't doubt for one minute that Stalin would have been history, may have been one of the best things to ever happen to the Soviet people. Just don't believe the country would have given up.

The problem is that once Stalin goes, the entire framework of loyalty, fear and suspicion that Stalin's regime was founded on goes with it.

That's fine if it's peacetime and there's no aggressive external threat to worry about.

It's quite another matter when you're in a fight-to-the-death with a major power, and losing.

On top of that, you also have Stalin's role in Soviet propaganda. The cult of personality around Stalin had him in the center of the fight against the Germans - make it known that Stalin is no more, and that's a blow that's going to have an impact on the factory floor as well as the meeting room of the politburo.
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by rustysi »

The problem is that once Stalin goes, the entire framework of loyalty, fear and suspicion that Stalin's regime was founded on goes with it.

That's fine if it's peacetime and there's no aggressive external threat to worry about.

It's quite another matter when you're in a fight-to-the-death with a major power, and losing.

On top of that, you also have Stalin's role in Soviet propaganda. The cult of personality around Stalin had him in the center of the fight against the Germans - make it known that Stalin is no more, and that's a blow that's going to have an impact on the factory floor as well as the meeting room of the politburo.

There was more than just Stalin to fear in the Soviet Union. There was his whole apparatus. I don't think the politburo could have admitted being bested by the Nazis and survived. Therefore, I believe they would have continued the struggle rather than see the possible collapse of Communism.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
BattleMoose
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:16 am

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by BattleMoose »

The USSR was fighting for its very existence. Germany was intent on destroying it. Did the Soviets know this? Surrendering or ending the war I don't think ever was an option. If surrendering meant annihilation, extermination then the only choice is to fight, regardless of the circumstance or how hopeless it looks. I don't tend to pay much attention to Sun Tzu but this is particularly poignant. Not so much about surrounding, but that there has to be an alternative to death.

"When you surround the enemy
Always allow them an escape route.
They must see that there is
An alternative to death."
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Cloud Hands edition
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The USSR was fighting for its very existence. Germany was intent on destroying it. Did the Soviets know this? Surrendering or ending the war I don't think ever was an option. If surrendering meant annihilation, extermination then the only choice is to fight, regardless of the circumstance or how hopeless it looks. I don't tend to pay much attention to Sun Tzu but this is particularly poignant. Not so much about surrounding, but that there has to be an alternative to death.

"When you surround the enemy
Always allow them an escape route.
They must see that there is
An alternative to death."
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Cloud Hands edition

Touche. (don't know how to put the little accent thingie over the 'e')
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by rustysi »

"When you surround the enemy
Always allow them an escape route.
They must see that there is
An alternative to death."
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Good 'ol Sun Tzu. He also said if you want an army to fight don't give them an escape route. I'm paraphrasing here, of course.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

We're forgetting the impact that the fall of Stalingrad would have on Russian morale and internal politics.

1941 had been an absolute disaster for the Russians, and 1942 hadn't exactly been the annus mirabilis either. Leningrad was still under siege and despite the gains made around Rzhev, the Germans had still managed to come up trumps at 2nd Kharhov. A great deal of the Soviet Union was still under German/Axis occupation.

Stalin was throwing the kitchen sink into defending the city with his name. If it had fallen, it's easy to see that a sense of defeatism could have crept into the Soviet High Command - they'd thrown the Germans back from Moscow, but the Germans had bounced back and Case Blau looked like it was going to be 1941 all over again.

Stalin knew that the GPW was a fight for his own life, let alone anything else, so the most likely scenario would be a coup that puts him out of the picture and sends overtures of terms to the Germans allowing the Soviets to cut their losses and run for the Urals to bide their time.

Khrushchev, probably more than any other Soviet figure, was ideally placed to judge both the military and the political situation during the Battle of Stalingrad. If he says that the Soviet Union would have collapsed if the city had fallen, I'd be inclined to take his word for it. Granted - with a pinch of salt: it does his reputation and ego no harm to be known to have been involved in the battle that decided the fate of the Soviet Union.

I disagree. The Soviets had very little invested in Stalingrad in the first place. Only enough troops to keep the Germans busy. Most of the city was already destroyed, the population dead or evacuated and the industry moved. Aside from a block of the Volga, the Germans stood to gain little from a strategic standpoint. Even if they were thrown out of the city the Soviets were massing monster tank armies on both flanks. Those tank armies would not have packed up and headed for home. Forget the morale issue. The Russians had already lost Kiev, Smolensk and most of Western Russia (not to mention millions of lives) and never really flinched. If they had not caved by then what makes it so certain that the loss of another city would have made any difference? There was a chance in 41 but by then end of 1942 the population was in it to the bitter end and the leadership was more than recovered from the disasters of the previous year. They knew that they were already outproducing the Germans and were thinking about winning. I suspect that the loss of Stalingrad would have just adjusted the lines back a bit and the Soviets would have picked themselves up and gotten back to the business of killing Germans.

Perhaps the Axis could have won the war in 41 (but I doubt it) but by the end of 1942 they were already losing.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The loss of virtually the entire 6th army was pretty significant.

Not to mention the loss of just about every army of Germany's satelite partners. Not that they were that good to begin with, but their loss just put more strain on German resources.

The Rumanian (or Romanian) army was pretty good actually and the Hungarians acquitted themselves well, as did the Italian troops sent to the Eastern Front. Problem was they couldn't provide replacements for expected losses.

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by geofflambert »

Now let's talk about the battle of Waterloo. Those Brunswickers (Braunshweigers) were amazing!

User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by rustysi »

The Rumanian (or Romanian) army was pretty good actually and the Hungarians acquitted themselves well, as did the Italian troops sent to the Eastern Front. Problem was they couldn't provide replacements for expected losses.

They all lacked the modern heavy weapons that were required to combat a well equiped (by that time) Soviet army. Replacements or not by late '42 none of them could go toe to toe with the Soviets.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
bigred
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:15 am

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by bigred »

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Another facet of the German defeat at Stalingrad was the decision of the U.S. to only raise just over 100 divisions for the Army. Prior to Germany's defeat it was thought that it should be 208 divisons (IIRC). Once the U.S. realized the Soviets would not fold they adopted the former figure, thus freeing up manpower for production, and that production for its Allies. So, the defeat had repercussions far beyond the battlefield.
208 div, very interesting..
---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
tm.asp?m=2597400
User avatar
bigred
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:15 am

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by bigred »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: rustysi
It's quite easy to draw comparisons with the Soviet Union in 1941 - with the shambles of the Red Army in 1941 and the failure to hold Stalingrad in 1942 providing the motivation for some of the Soviet High Command to seriously consider replacing Stalin.

Don't doubt for one minute that Stalin would have been history, may have been one of the best things to ever happen to the Soviet people. Just don't believe the country would have given up.

The problem is that once Stalin goes, the entire framework of loyalty, fear and suspicion that Stalin's regime was founded on goes with it.

That's fine if it's peacetime and there's no aggressive external threat to worry about.

It's quite another matter when you're in a fight-to-the-death with a major power, and losing.

On top of that, you also have Stalin's role in Soviet propaganda. The cult of personality around Stalin had him in the center of the fight against the Germans - make it known that Stalin is no more, and that's a blow that's going to have an impact on the factory floor as well as the meeting room of the politburo.
no mind-messing here...
---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
tm.asp?m=2597400
User avatar
Erkki
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:03 am

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by Erkki »

ORIGINAL: rustysi
The Rumanian (or Romanian) army was pretty good actually and the Hungarians acquitted themselves well, as did the Italian troops sent to the Eastern Front. Problem was they couldn't provide replacements for expected losses.

They all lacked the modern heavy weapons that were required to combat a well equiped (by that time) Soviet army. Replacements or not by late '42 none of them could go toe to toe with the Soviets.

AFAIK the Soviet forces that made the breakthrough and then shook hands deep beneath the Axis lines were not exactly state of the art themselves either. Lots of Mongol cavalry, many carrying swords and all. (Beevor, WW2 2013)

As was mentioned, Stalingrad was of massive importance to the Soviets as it was a logistical node and most oil came from or across the Caucasus... As did a lot of Allied help from Iran.
Operation Blue stretched too thin and went for too many targets because Hitler insisted. I think had Hitler personally not intervened and let his generals do their work the Germans could have won, but I doubt that they'd have reached the Urals and won the war. At best the East front could have bacome a frozen conflict of a sort with buffer nations found. USSR's fall would have increased the pressure and the Allies would have without a doubt concentrated more on Europe and dealed away with Japan later.

edit: fixed typos
Rob322
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:53 pm

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by Rob322 »

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Another facet of the German defeat at Stalingrad was the decision of the U.S. to only raise just over 100 divisions for the Army. Prior to Germany's defeat it was thought that it should be 208 divisons (IIRC). Once the U.S. realized the Soviets would not fold they adopted the former figure, thus freeing up manpower for production, and that production for its Allies. So, the defeat had repercussions far beyond the battlefield.

As an aside, the US struggled to raise 100 divisions (and I don't think we quite got there) but then we were also equipping a large navy and Air Force ... As well as having a lot of men in the merchant marine and home in industry. I doubt we would've ever got as high as 208 however
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by spence »

Volume 1 of "Eisenhower's Lieutenants" discusses the prewar/early war planning for troop strength.
It speaks of plans for quite a few more divisions than were actually raised although I have forgotten exactly how many. Roughly 200 or so seems about right. In the event, IIRC the US raised 95 divisions but had enough extra bits and pieces (independent regiments and battalions) to amalgamate another 60 or so divisions and provide enough manpower for a large air force and navy and an "arsenal of democracy".


User avatar
Eambar
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:36 pm

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by Eambar »

I don't think losing Stalingrad would have led to the Soviet government being toppled. Had Stalingrad fell, they would have still amassed the forces they prepared for Operation Uranus but launched it a bit further back rather than on the banks of the Volga and Don. Planning for the counter-offensive had started in September, well before the fate of Stalingrad was known. Had they lost the city, they would have shrugged their shoulders and launched Uranus anyway.

To the Soviets, Stalingrad was the lesser of the two operations planned for late 1942. Operation Mars, and its follow-on Jupiter, were the Soviet main efforts in terms of men and materiel. Zhukov commanded the Western and Kalinin Fronts, and their mission was to encircle and destroy German Ninth Army in the Rzhev salient. Zhukov believed that the Soviet Union could best achieve strategic victory by smashing German forces along the Moscow axis, and that they represented a dagger aimed at Moscow. Therefore, argued Zhukov, the Soviet Union could best achieve strategic victory in 1942 by smashing German Ninth Army in the salient and, thereafter, all of German Army Group Center.

Vasilevsky commanded Operation Uranus and its follow-on Saturn, and their objective was the encirclement and destruction of 6th Army.

Operation Mars was a failure, with neither Front achieving its objectives, and was a meatgrinder for the Soviets rarely equalled during the remainder of the war. Operation Mars cost the Red Army nearly half a million men killed, wounded, or captured. Individual Soviet combat units were decimated in the operation. The Soviet 20th Army lost 58,524 men out of its original strength of over 114,000 men.General Solomatin's 1st Mechanized Corps lost 8,100 of its 12,000 men and all of its 220 tanks, and the accompanying 6th Stalin Rifle Corps lost over 20,000 of its 30,000 men. At lower levels the cost was even higher. The 8th Guards Rifle Corp's 26th Guards Rifle Division emerged from combat with 500 of its over 7,000 combat infantrymen intact, while the 4,500 man 148th and 150th Rifle Brigades had only 27 and 110 "fighters," respectively, available at the end of the operation.

Soviet tank losses, correctly estimated by the Germans as around 1,700, were equally staggering, in as much as they exceeded the total number of tanks the Soviets initially committed in Operation Uranus at Stalingrad.

So if the failure of the Soviet main effort in late '42 did not topple the Government, then I doubt a loss at Stalingrad would have in isolation. If both operations had failed, it would be difficult to see how Zhukov and Vasilevsky would not have been shot, and that in itself might have changed the course of the war given the influence of Zhukov and Vasilevsky on later battles (Zhukov would later defeat Army Group Centre at Kursk in '43 and Belorussia in '44, while Vasilevsky as a key Stavka planner would oversee the final destruction in East Prussia in April '45).

Cheers,


mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: bigred

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: rustysi



Don't doubt for one minute that Stalin would have been history, may have been one of the best things to ever happen to the Soviet people. Just don't believe the country would have given up.

The problem is that once Stalin goes, the entire framework of loyalty, fear and suspicion that Stalin's regime was founded on goes with it.

That's fine if it's peacetime and there's no aggressive external threat to worry about.

It's quite another matter when you're in a fight-to-the-death with a major power, and losing.

On top of that, you also have Stalin's role in Soviet propaganda. The cult of personality around Stalin had him in the center of the fight against the Germans - make it known that Stalin is no more, and that's a blow that's going to have an impact on the factory floor as well as the meeting room of the politburo.
no mind-messing here...

Playing the Devil's advocate is what I do.

The world becomes very bland if everyone agrees on everything.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by LoBaron »

The world becomes very bland if everyone agrees on everything.

Obviously. And quite a confused place if everybody disagrees just for the sake of disagreement.
Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Stalingrad?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
The world becomes very bland if everyone agrees on everything.

Obviously. And quite a confused place if everybody disagrees just for the sake of disagreement.
warspite1

No it doesn't [:D]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”