WI: Germany wins at Stalingrad, crosses Volga and...?

[James G]

In late 1942, Hitler's armies marched on Stalingrad. The Soviets held onto a sliver of the western banks and denied Germany control of the city because they could keep on reinforcing.
Let us say that the tactical situation on the ground is a tiny bit better for Germany and they rush forward and grab the riverbank despite enemy units all over their rear. Moreover, using boats captured there and then, they put a force over the Volga.
Now what occurs? Have they won the war by this? Do their armies go east, north, south or all three?

[raunchel]

As far as I know, their logistical situation remains a complete and utter disaster and the flanks are relatively weak. But it would probably not turn the city into such a symbolic struggle. I'm thinking that the bridgehead over the Volga would be nearly impossible to maintain given the logistical situation, and there is bound to be a Soviet counterattack at some point. But, without the symbolic battle for Stalingrad, 6th army will find it easier to withdraw which would probably make the war last a little longer.

[eurowatch]

Jan 31, 2019 18:11:42 GMT James G said:

In late 1942, Hitler's armies marched on Stalingrad. The Soviets held onto a sliver of the western banks and denied Germany control of the city because they could keep on reinforcing.
Let us say that the tactical situation on the ground is a tiny bit better for Germany and they rush forward and grab the riverbank despite enemy units all over their rear. Moreover, using boats captured there and then, they put a force over the Volga.
Now what occurs? Have they won the war by this? Do their armies go east, north, south or all three?

That further situation Depends on how fast the Germans were able to capture Stalingrad. If they were able to take the city fairly quickly army group B can begin setting up defenese lines and prepare for the inevitable Soviet Counter-offensive. With Stalingrad not swallowing up massive amounts of resources, the Germans can focus on supplying Army Group A in their drive to the Baku oilfields. If they can capture those they don't have to worry about fuel anymore. 
Will the Germans have won the war because they captured Stalingrad? No. While it Will have rechieved a hit, the Soviet Union's industry Will still be intact and they can continue churning out weapons. The most important Effect Will be that the Germans Will not have taken thousands of irraplaceble casulties and know the target of the Soviet winter offensive and can prepare accordingly.

[stevep]

   I have seen some suggestions that if the Germans had been able to move faster and bounce the defences before most of them were set up they could have captured the city relatively quickly and easily, although given its size and symbolic status to both dictators there's still likely to be heavy fighting.

  I doubt that the Germans could take Baku, as its a bloody long way and covered by the Caucasus Mts to a large degree.  Plus given Soviet plans to burn the oilfields and the distance from it to Germany or any secure location its unlikely even if they did manage to take the fields and then repair them they would get any significant amounts out of the area.  If fact it could be a oil drain in terms of the distances involved as maintaining forces in the region, or in support of defending the region could consume more oil then their likely to get out.

  Also the issue is what would Hitler decide to do.  Concentrate on supporting AGA's drive for Baku, have AGB seek to say advance down the west bank of the Volga to Astrakhan to try and prevent the Soviets having a bridgehead over the river, which would help but mean their stretched very thinly or would he want them dashing off deeper into Russia?

  While its unlikely it would 'win' the war for Germany, which was pretty much lost by summer 42 although this was unclear at the time it could do a lot of damage for the Soviets.  If AGA could reach Baku or get close enough to either attack it effectively or prompt Soviet demolition could cause serious oil shortages for the Soviets.  This would drastically affect the operations of the Red Army and especially the ability to make deep penetrations, forcing them to make more frontal assaults and making them more vulnerable to counter attacks - presuming the Herr can prevent Hitler demanding the defence of every inch of occupied territory.  It might also disrupt some of the L-L from the west that came via Persia, although I think that mainly went eastwards through central Asia.

  Also the Volga was very important economically as a transport link and German control of a stretch of it would impede movement of goods between the north and south of the position.  Not sure what the south produced other that probably that's how a lot of the oil reached the rest of Russia, but this could be very important if the Soviets still hold an undamaged Baku.  However, especially if the Soviets still get their oil I can't see the Germans holding such an exposed position for long.

  As such while the loss of Baku's oil, whether for a short or longer period, wouldn't doom the Soviets its likely to make the fighting in the east even bloodier for them.  Unless their able to bounce back quickly and possibly make an even greater encirclement in the winter of 42/43.  The Germans nearly lost AGA OTL and if the Soviets hadn't concentrated so much of their strength on the isolated 6th Army and/or the Germans are even further south and still being pushed to attack by Hitler they could lose the entire army group, along with a good chunk of AGB if that's also sent south to support the offensive.

[Deleted]

Russland ist zu größ.

[lordroel]

Feb 1, 2019 11:52:24 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

Russland ist zu größ.

I agree, if the Soviets loss at Stalingrad they will win at a other place.

[mcnutt]

If they lose at Stalingrad, are the Soviets able to pressure the WAlllies to invade France in 1943 ?

[stevep]

Feb 3, 2019 0:34:27 GMT mcnutt said:

If they lose at Stalingrad, are the Soviets able to pressure the WAlllies to invade France in 1943 ?

  I hope not as that could be a total disaster!  Although since by Nov 42 they were committed to the Torch landings and the way they were carried out*, which meant fighting in N Africa continued until Mar 43 that pretty much ruled out a 43 invasion of N France.

* - by this I mean that Britain wanted the landings to be further east, with some in Tunisia itself to cut off reinforcements that followed in via Italy.  The US insisted on landings further west, including on the Atlantic coast to secure an overland supply line but that prevented an early defeat of the Axis forces in Africa.  There is the danger, if the Vichy forces had put up heavy resistance, that it might have ended disastrously but securing Tunisia and Algeria and quite possibly getting to Tripoli before a retreating Rommel could have mopped up the campaign quickly.

  Of course that could have had a serious down side.  Its just possible that Roosevelt might then have pushed for a 43 landing before the allies were fully prepared, preventing the early part of the Italian campaign, which secured the Med and finally knocked out Italy, tying up a lot of German forces.  Also, presuming it was British forces landing in Tunisia the US units would have got minimal experience and quite possibly zero combat experience which would have made them very vulnerable in a Normandy landing!

[James G]

IIRC, Stalin had long been pressuring the West to open up a front in France regardless. This was back in '42, let alone '43.
To do so would be before the majority of the Atlantic Wall was built so that would be an advantage but everything else is against the Western Allies in doing that in terms of experience as stevep notes but also shipping, assault craft, and so much more. Germany transferred significant forces from France to Russia following the loss at Stalingrad to replace those lost there. Maybe they go east to follow-up a Stalingrad victory yet they probably don't and stay in the West waiting for an invasion.

[stevep]

Feb 3, 2019 19:43:13 GMT James G said:

IIRC, Stalin had long been pressuring the West to open up a front in France regardless. This was back in '42, let alone '43.
To do so would be before the majority of the Atlantic Wall was built so that would be an advantage but everything else is against the Western Allies in doing that in terms of experience as stevep notes but also shipping, assault craft, and so much more. Germany transferred significant forces from France to Russia following the loss at Stalingrad to replace those lost there. Maybe they go east to follow-up a Stalingrad victory yet they probably don't and stay in the West waiting for an invasion.

  Those are probably the key points.  The allies are going to be taking a hell of a risk trying in 43, especially as their unlikely to have either Mulberry Harbour so something like the OTL storm in the June 44 landing could doom the entire thing.  Also the Luftwaffe, although much weaker hasn't been as totally suppressed.  Plus if no Italian campaign German forces haven't been diverted to replace Italian ones in the Balkans or form a significant army in Italy itself, while if no landings in N Africa Vichy is still unoccupied and the Germans haven't lost their OTL forces in Tunisia while Rommel could still be in Libya which would tie up British forces facing him.

  I touched on those points a couple of years back in terms of if the west decided to go for a 43 landing in France and hence no Torch landing, think it was called "Disaster at Washington" IIRC.  Although the POD is different as it was a western allied decision Washington rather than greater German success in the Stalingrad campaign.