Germans bypass Stalingrad

the Caspian is land locked so how are the Germans going to transport MTBs or submarines over land? The Soviets are not going to run into infantry units because they will be in the south fighting. The Germans needed more infantry to try to force the passes of the Caucausus.
Im not sure how well you have read about the east front, but the one thing Germany did not have was infantry reserves, which is why they were using the allied troops. To coincide with the Stalingrad operation, the Soviet also launched operation Mars which was a failure, but it prevented the Germans from sending troops south. The German army was already short of replacements. In May many divisions lost a couple battallions each to be used in other units to make up losses. The Germans had also lost large numbers of trucks for transports and many infantry units had lost almost all of them to allow for case Blue.

 

I always wonder if people who express opinions about the Baku I field on the west of the Caspian really understand how it is sort of isolated from the rest of the world to the west. No rail lines, no pipelines, and few roads. The Baku fields fed their own petro supply by using tanker shipping to the Volga, and then barges up the river. Closing off the Volga was an important "plan of attack", and without taking Stalingrad the Volga route remains open. The river was "cheapest", but the north/south rail also ran east of the Volga as a supply route to the north.

Stalingrad was also one of the largest production points of the T-34 until "Tankograd" got up and running later, and it remained in production until the very first of the Nazi attacks. They (Nazis) couldn't allow the operating tank production plants to flourish in their rear, even Hitler understood this.

 

steverodgers801, yes the Caspian is land locked, However so was the Black Sea to the Germans and Italians yet they managed to build up 12 submarines, 23 R boats, 10 S boats and 4 torpedo boats. And you must remember Turkey refused passage for anyone all of these naval assets had to be transported across land then reassembled.

And they didn't need more infantry, They just needed the right Infantry for the job, The Italian mountain divisions were perfect and had actually been planned to be used in the mountains once reached.

Operation Mars was launched and did take place, Very late in 1942. And as for its usefulness, In the words of author David Glantz: "In the unlikely event that Zhukov was correct and Mars was really a diversion, there has never been one so ambitious, so large, so clumsily executed, or so costly". operation Mars did little to affect Germany's ability to wage war, No reinforcements had to be rushed to plug any gap, they used what they had and they won.

As for the reinforcements i have mentioned, You still dont seem to take into account the effect of cutting off the use of resupply across the Volga (from Astrakhan etc). With out reinforcements the force would be left small and ill equipped, Could they eventually be supplied by the British and Yanks? Sure but that would take time, Likely more time then they would be there. There forces at the time in the Caucasus was only small and very ill equipped.

brndirt1, How is it that if the German's had based them selves along the Volga as a defensive line that it could still be used by the Soviets? your talking about several hundred km's of being able to spot the vessels and take them out. unless these barges move at 50 knots they would be sunk, Controlling a city doesn't make your ability to sink them any better or worse.

As for the North/South railway, I'm assuming you mean the one stat starts around present day Atyrau?? If so then the Soviets would have to travel half the length of the Caspian Sea under possible air and naval attack?? Considering they were getting other sources and these became of no need I delt the Soviets would put in the needed resources to protect what they didn't need. And even if this was the case, Why didnt they do it when they were cut off in the first place? Once Stalingrad had started up they stopped sending oil, They could have sent it by your proposed North-South railway but they never did, So did you really believe they would do it in this case?

As for the T-34's in production in Stalingrad, As I already said.. It can be bombed by use of the Luftwaffe and artillery. The Soviets had already started to evacuate before the Germans reached Stalingrad, All they were doing is getting the last few off the lines. A bombed factory takes time to repair, In that time there is no production, No production and constant bombing I think would make the Soviets realize its more trouble then its worth, especially with other factories being set up further East. There would be no flourishing there, Would be hard enough bringing up the resources to use in the production of a plant under constant attack.


So I stand by my points,
- The Axis could have isolated the Caucasus
- They could have established a defensive line across the Don-Volga area
- They could have transported then assembled several small naval assets for use in the Caspian Sea
- The Tank factory in Stalingrad would be shut down due to need for constant repairs and poor production numbers resulting from attacks.
- The Axis would be able to field reserves (You never have every bloody soldier on the front line, You have what you need limited and everyone else is in the rear ready to hit the Soviets were they attack)
- The Caucasus could be captured without the need of massive amounts of men to 'force' there way through.

 

The Black sea forces traveled down the Danube. If you are talking about not taking Stalingrad then you are doing the exact thing that led to the defeat in the first place, never leave the Soviets a bridgehead. Its one thing to transport small boats short distances, but you are talking about hundreds of miles across poor terrain. There wont be reserves because you are vastly increasing the distance to be held by going to Astrakhan. The steppes leading to Astrakhan have no roads or rail lines which would put a huge burden on the very limited transport system. The distance from Stalingrad to Astrakhan is farther then Stalingrad to Voronezh and that required all of the allied armies. Actually the Germans did need every man, either on the front line or fighting partisans. If the Germans had reserves, why did they need the allied troops. As for defense the Don stop at Voronezh and that area was covered by the Hungarians and Italians and dont forget the Soviets had the ability to attack at multiple points and they consistently fooled the Germans as to where.

 

Black Sea naval force: Were partially sent via the Danube, They were also disassembled and reassembled once they reached the Black Sea. As for getting them to the Caspian, While I concede there is no direct route, It does not make it impossible. Using the Don/Manych rivers would greatly decrease the distance needed to be transported. But in any case, Assuming they were unable to get any naval vessels into the Caspian sea, They would still have aircraft with the range to bomb the small number of ships there.

Stalingrad: Not taking Stalingrad led to the German defeat?? I'm afraid I don't agree with your assessment, Even had the Germans taken Stalingrad there flanks were still not secured, They had the Soviets building up large forces on both sides so how is it you come to the conclusion that not taking Stalingrad led to the German defeat? Im puzzled but curious. As for you saying it is a bridge head, Well quite simply it wouldnt make sense to try and capture Stalingrad in 1942, To do so would require cutting off all land resupply and river supply, That means advancing across the Volga/Don bridge head as well as crossing the Volga and securing the land on the other side of the Volga bend. Something they definitely couldn't do in 1942 considering the resources at there disposal.

Also, Just a point, When I talk about a bridge head I'm referring to an enemy force have control of territory on your side of the river of from the sea, Not a slice of land between 2 rivers, you cant actually eliminate a bridge head in that scenario unless you go and build a river connecting them.

Reserves and defensive line: Spreading out from Stalingrad to Astrakhan actually shortens the line by more then half when you take into account the length of the line for the forces fighting in the Caucasus. As for partisans, Well even though Hitler initially was against it the Axis did bring some 1.5 million Soviets into there command on the Eastern front, arming and even leaving them behind to fight the partisans. That could just as well be done here. As for reserves, You never need every man at the front, To do so puts all your cards on the table leaving nothing left to deal.

So the line would have been shorter, Thus less troops needed to man it. They needed so many of the allies on the line because they left so many bridge heads that the Soviets exploited, they built up there forces over time. While crossing when the rivers was frozen is possible, They tried to steer clear of it as the thickness of the ice varied from being able to support a tank to cracking from an under fed soldier stepping on it. So without first checking the ice thickness they would not be rushing across at the risk of losing thousands of men and hundreds of tanks before the Axis had to fire a single shot (They were determined, not stupid). No bridge head leaves the Soviets with a far harder time of getting across the Volga/Don rivers leaving only two good areas of attack, The Volga/Don land bridge and just past Voronezh.

So once again, With the rivers acting as natural barriers they would have to station far less troops, leaving more reserves. And Germany for the record did have reserves, just because you have allied armies manning a section of the line doesn't mean you don't have any, Just means your smart and now when to accept support.

Hungarian and Italian armies: Yes they manned that section, So what?? The Soviets attack from both flanks because they still held land on both sides, If they hadn't then the Italians and Hungarians wouldn't have had there forces split trying to fight both sides.

 

I was talking about the Germans needing to leave no bridge heads for the Soviets. If the Germans had taken Stalingrad early as planned, them they would not have been sucked into a battle. I still fail to see how you think it would be no big deal to guard a line from Voronezh to Astrakhan. Just to guard Voronezh to Stalingrad took 5 allied armies. Which is my point the GERMANS HAD NO RESERVES, they were used up in the first part of the campaign. The German army was short 100 to 200,000 men or so from when they started. Why else would they cannabalized their division in AGC and AGN to fill out AGS. Yes there would be tactical reserves, but they were for the local commander. In order to reinforce a army group meant the loss of another army group. To guard the Volga/Don would require numerous strong points, backed up by mobile reserves. However due to the lack of roads and rail in the Kalmyk steps means trucks would be needed for supply. The Germans had difficulty in supplying Stalingrad and to add hundreds more miles of distance to get to Astrakhan means few trucks for transporting troops.

 

Alright lets break it down, The Axis left the Soviets with several bridge heads, The Soviets used this to harass the Axis lines on multiple occasions. With the Soviets attacking from time to time they had to station more troops in those area's. If those bridge heads are not there then the need to station those extra troop's there diminishes. That means you have extra divisions/corps of the line in the rear, thus you have a larger reserve pool, Now while it may not be as large as what they would have liked they only have to defend 2 main sections allowing them to concentrate there forces. As I stated in my previous post, Attacking across the river was not feasible, If the river isnt flowing then they have to first get troop's across the other side, build bridges to bring across there heavy equipment as well as all the supplies to keep them moving all while under fire OR f the river is frozen then they first have to check the thickness of the ice as they never moved heavy equipment across unless they knew the ice could handle the weight (even in Leningrad they would check the ice thickness before bringing across supplies when the lake was frozen) or risk losing thousands of men and hundreds of tanks, and worst of all the element of surprise.

So the only points of attack that are guaranteed a chance of real success is near Voronezh or the land bridge between the Volga and Don, two area were they can concentrate there forces. With 2 panzer armies they would be able to put armor at each point.

As for supply, Seeing as a number of these forces would actually see less combat in the long run then they did historically (those in the Caucasus for example) there need for supplies will decrease, A soldier on the attack needs more supplies then one on the defense. But one way to shorten the supply line, Use what merchant ships exist within the Black Sea, While it wouldn't be much between them they would be able to ship the needed supplies and even spare/replacement equipment across to Rostov from were any number of captured barges can be used to transport it up the Don thus shortening the line of the land based supply route by 50% and even speeding it up some with the shorter travel time for the merchant ships in the Black Sea. At a lea-surly speed of 10 knots from Constanta to Taganrog would have them at sea less then 2 1/2 days, Taking in loading and unloading time and they could do a trip a week.

Every problem has a solution, Some times its tricky and some times its just simple and straight forward.

 

I was addressing the transportation of petroleum from Baku I pre-1941, and since that is the time-frame in which Hitler and his "planners" had to function it must be taken into consideration. Now, there was an existing rail link between the Caspian and Moscow which ran a few miles east of the Volga pre-war, it was later linked to the Baku II field when west Baku was shut down and stopped up with injected cement. Without even an existing transportation system to "liberate" and use the entire Caucasus oil drive by the Nazis was a looser from the get go.

Hitler and his henchmen didn't see it, and wasted too much time and treasure trying to take something which would have been of no value if they could have done so. That said, leaving Stalingrad at your "back" while trying to take a valueless oil deposit only added to the woes of the Eastern Front for the Nazis. I'm not saying they couldn't "bomb" the tractor/tank factory into worthless rubble, but as has been proven time and again "air power alone" doesn't win a battle, it only supplements the "boots on the ground" which control an area. Tank production aside, a viable city (named for your arch-rival) simply cannot be ignored and left to be a point from which counter-attacks can be launched.

I'm not defending Hitler here, or his choice of taking Stalingrad and failing miserably. I'm simply pointing out some of the reasons beyond vanity which might have compelled him to do so.

 

And BTW, This is a portion of an old post of mine from 2008, and while in its entirety it deals with other subjects, it does address the “tank” production ability of the USSR.


The Gorki T-34 plant was east of Moscow by about 240 miles (460 km) and connected by rail, to both Moscow, Leningrad and the Caspian sea, east of the Volga river, and that plant itself was in existence since in 1929 when the first trucks (Ford-AA) and Ford model A cars were built in Nizhny Novgorod from parts shipped from the USA (before they converted to using Ford machine tools and stamping units to produce their own parts). This was supervised by both Henry Ford himself, and Ford personnel all through the twenties and thirties. In late 1941 the tank production machine tools and such were transferred to Nizhny Novgorod (since 1932 Gorki, now back to Nizhny Novgorod) from Leningrad. The name GAZ, as in the Soviet GAZ-AA light trucks, stands for Gorki Automobile Zavod (Plant). When this plant was finished and producing civilian vehicles and tractors in the twenties, it already had a separate section closed off for military production with imbedded bolts in the concrete floors to accept the existing machine tools of tank production, so when the Leningrad T-34 plant S.M. Kirov Factory # 185 was threatened with closure or capture, its machine tools and such were simply "unbolted" from their floors, and transferred to both the Gorki # 112 plant and the "Tankograd”" plant by rail and production was begun. I think the first T-34s rolled out of the Gorki plant in either late ’41 or early ’42. But the other plant didn’t begin production of T-34s until 1942, until then they continued to build the KV "heavy" tank model. Notice that Nizhny Novgorod (Gorki) is on the Volga, far east of Moscow. This was the place to which some the Leningrad tank works were transferred before Leningrad was completely "cut-off".

And another point that must be made is that the largest steel producing facility in the USSR (in fact in the world for years and years had been completed on the Siberian side (east) of the Ural mountains on the eastern bank of the Ural river in the thirties. That was Magnitogorsk; this city played an important role during WW2 since half of all the steel for Soviet tanks and a third of all artillery projectiles were made there. BTW, the plant was constructed by the US firm of Kerr McGee, and originally manned by McGee staff/engineers while their Soviet replacements were trained in the USA. The Soviets withheld payment to Kerr McGee until the plant was working at full capacity with completely Soviet manpower in the thirties. This plant held more huge capacity furnaces in one facility than were in the USA. This city was connected by rail extensively for material for steel production, because while it was built next to a huge iron ore deposit, all its alloys, coal and coke had to be shipped in by rail and river barge.

And don’t neglect that in Chelyabinsk (nicknamed Tankograd; "tank city"), much of Stalin’s soviet war production of the T-34 was transferred to the already existing industrial city. Remember that the Chelyabinsk Tractor Factory (later converted to tanks) and the Chelyabinsk Metallurgical Plant, were both completed and running in the thirties. I also believe that when the Stalingrad tank production ceased, its machine tools (supplementing those from Leningrad), and experts were transferred by rail to the already existing Chelyabinsk industrial site, with the exception of the last shipment which were captured on the loading docks. The transfer of that Stalingrad staff and workers moved thousands of persons to Chelyabinsk before the T-34 tank producing facility at Chelyabinsk was finally set up in late 1941 and early ’42 by engineers and workers from the Leningrad, Kharkov and lastly the Stalingrad plants, it was producing tanks.

At first the existing "Tankograd " facility only supplied the front with "KV" heavy tanks which it had been building, and those tanks participated in the stopping and later crushing of the Nazi forces in the battle of Moscow beginning in early December of 1941 and continuing into ‘42. In the second year of the war the plant was completely converted to the production of "T-34" medium tanks, in just 33 days these (as well as Katyusha rockets) were then produced on a massive scale until the war was over.

Stalin’s Soviet also had many "plans" in place and constantly updated in the thirties for the eventuality of an invasion from Europe, both for arms production and the moving of the plants essential tools and staff to safer areas east of any front by rail. Many of the plants to the east were already set up with "closed off" but constructed sections in which to produce armaments. The GAZ automotive plant at Gorki (now Nizhny Novgorod again) is a good example, it was constructed by Ford USA in the twenties, had a section built and waiting for tank tools and staff to be put in place so its conversion to tank production went quickly.

It can be read/reviewed at:

http://www.ww2f.com/what-if-european-theater-eastern-front-balkans/11720-if-germans-had-captured-moscow-what-do-you-think-would-have-happened-6.html

 

Alright few things I'm interested in,

- Baku II location, Have been searching around for it but cant find anything on it. Would help seeing as you have now informed me that a rail line ran between Baku I and Baku II, Also knowing the route this line took would help.
- The line running from Baku to Moscow, Do you happen to have a map of this? or even better of the entire Soviet rail network of 1941?
- Just to prevent any confusion, A short version of were the oil starts from and were it goes through, You mentioned that they transported in via ships in the Caspian Sea, I'm curious as to the route so I can nail down weather the Axis would be able to hamper that or not.

If I'm able to find these out might make thing's a little more clearer for me thus either confirming that it was possible or simply telling me I was full of it =).

As for the bombing, In those instances the target area was usually much of the city, Were I propose the Luftwaffe be used is on a defined area and target which can and did work.

Hopefully with those questions answered I'll be able to make a more detailed post =).

Cheers, von_noobie

 

This is the best I can do.



If you look closely at this map, you will see that both the Volga and the rail lines diverge near Stalingrad into the north east direction, and a closer look shows another line coming in from the east a bit south of Soratov (?). This could easily be the line from the Baku II (East Baku) region. This is the best I can do here.

And here is an interesting link which sort of describes the major problems the Soviets addressed and conquered in their quest for oil for their own use, and their determination to keep it out of the hands of the Nazis post June-1941. Of course the original Baku field never came back to “full production”, they had really done too good a job of sabotage it appears.

The Second “Baku” on the eastern shore of the Caspian was always going to be far out of reach of the Nazis, and an unobtainable goal. But of course they didn’t know Baku I was a total lost cause when they tried to capture it, and never even got close to the "dry/sealed holes".

Goto:

World War II and Azerbaijan by Vagif Agayev, Fuad Akhundov, Fikrat T. Aliyev and Mikhail Agarunov

 

Some additional facts, the air unit that was dedicated to anti naval was soon to be sent to the Med, it was very important in the Black sea so moving it would mean a loss to that area. The reason Hitler wanted the oil was to be able to expand the German war machine to be able to fight the US. It was the whole reason for the war.

 

Thanks for what you can help with, It is appreciated.

Found the location of Baku II, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia I believe it was,

Looking at that map, was able to find a similar one that is a little easier on the eyes.

Map of the Soviet Winter Offensive December 13, 1942 - February 18, 1943Looking at that map I notice that the rail system in the Caucasus region while not massive wasn't exactly non existent. Also it shows a route for small naval vessels to travel to the Caspian sea.

From the Don river, Go up the Manych river, follow along the canal connecting to the Kuma river and your at the Caspian Sea. This would make up for there lack of long range naval bombers.

Looking at the area's the Axis did control, It looks to me they tried to take to much all at once thus over extending them selves rather then breaking it up into smaller achievable goals. after reaching the outskirts of Stalingrad head for Astrakhan thus cutting off the land route. From there forces can spread out and capture the Manych/Kuma rivers and the connecting canal opening up the way for Axis naval vessels into the Caspian Sea. This would also greatly affect the LL through the Persian corridor. They had railway lines going from the Gulf as far as Tehran and Baku (connecting to Soviet railways) while the remainder was driven by fleets of trucks to Askhabad or shipped across the Caspian Sea from Nowshahr to Turkmenbashi (formerly Krasnovodsk), Baku or Makhachkala. While LL would not be cut off it would be slowed down.

After that they could have advanced from several different locations towards Salsk, Tikhoretsk, Armavir, Mozdok, Makhach Kala, Grozny, Novorossisk and Krasnodar. Several of these could be by cutting across the land all by following the rail line using it to your advantage to keep supplied.

From here I wouldn't assault along the entire Caucasus mountain range but chose a specific area, Could go for Tuapse and advance along the Black Sea coast for Batum thus eliminating the Soviet Black Sea naval forces and then head for Tiflis or could head from Makhach Kala towards Baku.

Going for Baku would likely put the forces up against the bulk up there new equipment (delivered via LL) and remaining forces but also if successful cut off LL to the rest, Or going the other way would likely put you up against a smaller force but leave your flank vulnerable with the Caucasus mountains being situated so close to the Black Sea.

Personally I'd go for Baku, Taking into account there limited to non existent air power in the region and that the terrain is a little more flat and more open would give best chance of success with smaller casualties.

But do feel free to point out any flaws, Am enjoying giving my brain a work out. =)

Cheers, von_noobie

 

I see the Germans could do one of two things, either guard the flanks along the Don or go after the Caucausus, they could not do both. The dilemma is they need to do both to succeed. I dont see a light naval force in the Caspian because of the logistic problems. Supplying Stalingrad was hard enough with out adding more distance.

 

Well my personal opinion is they could do both as long as they cut off the Caucasus before the Soviets reinforced them with to many extra troops and equipment.
I don't see the Soviets being to active along the Don, More so doing limited skirmishes around Voronezh and the Volga/Don land bridge based on the historical fact that they kept most of there forces back building up to ready for a massive offensive.

As for the naval units in the Caspian, they were only small and used compared to some vessels a small amount of fuel and considering there opposition there need for resupply wouldn't be that much all that often. Unless the Soviets divert air craft from the front to the Caspian it will be like shooting fish in a barrel for them.

The way I see it is it will come down to who ever is ready first, The Russian offensive or the Axis defences.. Could go either way but considering the possible area's of conflict it could very well turn into a battle made up of lots of small scale actions with plenty of back and forth turning into a stalemate.

Im happy to keep this going but since we seem unlikely to agree I'm also willing to agree to disagree =).

Cheers, von_noobie

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are absolutely right.In fact, your plan is in " Furher directive #41", with the proviso that Stalingrad, which on a long narrow axis North south, was to be broken by artillery fire, using railway guns.
The V/D canal was dug by 1940- mud bottomed.

good luck, as the cult of Stalingrad opposition is now about to get your backside!

 

Though I should point out I wouldn't support in discriminant use of artillery on Stalingrad, rather limited target areas. Should the city ever fall into axis hands you would want it usable, Not a pile of rubble. plus far easier to take a standing city then one that is perfect for ambushes by a vastly smaller force, As the Battle of Stalingrad showed us.

 

yes the Caspian is land locked, However so was the Black Sea to the Germans and Italians yet they managed to build up 12 submarines, 23 R boats, 10 S boats and 4 torpedo boats. And you must remember Turkey refused passage for anyone all of these naval assets had to be transported across land then reassembled.

More likely they simply went down the Danube. Europe has an extensive system of canals linking the major rivers, so boats built at Kiel, Bremen, etc. could travel by water to the Black Sea. For something slightly larger, according to German Type II submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Six [Type II U-boats] were stripped down to just a hull, transported by river and truck to Linz (on the Danube), and reassembled for use in the Black Sea against the Soviet Union.

 

It was actually a combination of land and river transport for all the vessels. The Danube stopped just short of hooking up with any river system that would be able to transport the vessels as a whole single unit with the closest river being the Rhine with the Rhine and Danube being divided by part of the European Watershed.

The actual force that made up the 6 Type II U-boats was the 30th U-boat Flotilla, using the Type IIB's.

 

Thanks, v n, I had not realized that the connection from the Danube to the Main was not yet in place - turns out it was only completed in 1992!