Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 18th, 2016, 12:55 PM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: uk
Posts: 1,623

Quote:
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Why even bother to bomb it, when it could be just "masked" (contained) as one author put it? That would've been a heck of a lot more economical.
I agree, but at least it would let Hitler feel like he'd 'punished' Stalins city.
paranoid marvin is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 18th, 2016, 05:32 PM   #22

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,800

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouselord View Post
Not quite accurate. While it is asinine to believe Hitler would not have been Hitler plenty of the SU's minorities and people who had suffered under Stalin were willing to fight for the Germans. Hitler however went onto killing them and made himself the bigger devil in the war. If Hitler had not done that plenty of recruits that were historically part of the Red Army would have been part of the German military machine.
All well and good, but what do they equip them with?
The Germans didn't have the means to properly equip the forces they already had.
redcoat is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 04:05 AM   #23

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,878

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank81 View Post
I agree with Xander, you can't go down to Baku with that huge vulnerable flank to the north.
Xander suggested applying pressure in the Moscow area to tie down Soviet forces there. I proposed using the bulk of the forces historically committed to Stalingrad to guard the flanks, especially the Don flank. That should've enabled Army group A to advance toward Baku, without having to pull back due to a threat from the north.

Quote:
One less ambitious plan would be not assaulting Stalingrad at all, but surround all the area, focuse on cutting supplies through the Volga and let the Soviets to starve themselves, or come out to fight in open battle.
As I posted, they did stop Soviet traffic on the Volga. And again, they shouldn't have attacked Stalingrad, but just contained it. Assuming Army group B was deployed to counter any Soviet counteroffensive, the Germans could've continued denying oil to the Soviets, if not taking it themselves. The Soviets wouldn't have starved, but loss of oil would've incapacitated most of their mobile units and air force.
starman is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 04:07 AM   #24

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,878

Quote:
Originally Posted by paranoid marvin View Post
I agree, but at least it would let Hitler feel like he'd 'punished' Stalins city.
The Germans would've done better to use the Luftwaffe to pound Astrakhan (assuming they could reach it) not Stalingrad.
starman is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 04:11 AM   #25

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,878

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
All well and good, but what do they equip them with?
The Germans didn't have the means to properly equip the forces they already had.
As late as '43, they equipped a Ukrainian SS division. There must have been plenty of captured Polish, French, Russian etc weapons. Another good idea--strip the no good Romanian and Italian units on the Don flank late in '42 and give their weapons to Soviet volunteers they felt they could trust, or were most determined.
starman is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 05:05 AM   #26

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,581

Quote:
Originally Posted by starman View Post
As late as '43, they equipped a Ukrainian SS division. There must have been plenty of captured Polish, French, Russian etc weapons. Another good idea--strip the no good Romanian and Italian units on the Don flank late in '42 and give their weapons to Soviet volunteers they felt they could trust, or were most determined.
You mean replace poorly equipped Italians etc with poorly equipped Ukranians etc? just how is that going to improve things?
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 06:26 AM   #27

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,878

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
You mean replace poorly equipped Italians etc with poorly equipped Ukranians etc? just how is that going to improve things?
Basically, the problem with the Italians and romanians wasn't poor equipment but abysmal fighting spirit. As one German noted along the Don in late '42, "the guns were abandoned not destroyed." There are a number of examples of the more poorly equipped side winning e.g. Israelis in '48, Chadians in '87 etc, because of high morale and determination. Quite a number of anti-Stalin people had that. The Ukrainian division was mauled in March '44 but its performance still impressed Himmler who ordered it restored to strength.
starman is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 07:22 AM   #28

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,581

Quote:
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Basically, the problem with the Italians and romanians wasn't poor equipment but abysmal fighting spirit. As one German noted along the Don in late '42, "the guns were abandoned not destroyed."................
I don't agree, they were not well supplied or equipped (especially the Romanians) and provided a convenient scapegoat for the Germans.
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 11:08 AM   #29

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,878

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
I don't agree, they were not well supplied or equipped (especially the Romanians) and provided a convenient scapegoat for the Germans.
The Romanians gave the Germans some of their worst troops and the Italians weren't exactly the most renowned fighters either. And that German did observe allied troops running away, after abandoning their guns, when the Soviets approached.
starman is offline  
Old November 19th, 2016, 12:52 PM   #30

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,581

Quote:
Originally Posted by starman View Post
The Romanians gave the Germans some of their worst troops and the Italians weren't exactly the most renowned fighters either. And that German did observe allied troops running away, after abandoning their guns, when the Soviets approached.

"...The Sixth Army, ordered to capture Stalingrad, had the Third (minus mountain infantry left with Army Group A) and Fourth Romanian Armies protecting its left and right flanks. The Romanian divisions, only seven battalions strong, covered a 12-mile front. They had no heavy artillery and few effective antitank weapons mainly horse-drawn 3 7mm Pak anti-tank guns which could not penetrate Soviet T-34 tank armor..."

Hitler?s Foreign Armies On World War II?s Eastern Front | Armchair General | Armchair General Magazine - We Put YOU in Command!
Kevinmeath is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
drawn, germans, stalingrad, won



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could the Germans have won at Stalingrad? Historical Delusion War and Military History 22 March 15th, 2017 06:27 AM
Which defeat was worse for the Germans: Stalingrad or Tunisia? Cmyers1980 War and Military History 28 July 11th, 2015 03:10 PM
Why did the Germans go after Stalingrad? Mohammed the Persian European History 20 August 15th, 2011 01:34 PM
What if the Germans won Stalingrad? mingming Speculative History 34 March 23rd, 2011 02:27 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.