Why didn't there Germans just march around Stalingrad and go to Moscow instead?
*sigh*
>>491529
>soviet army is in Stalingrad
>march around them
>they're behind you
That's sure to end well...
>>491532
Well, why?
>>491529
The real question is why did Hitler not just swallow his pride and press full on against the Caucasus oil fields for the fuel reserves the Reich needed more then some bombed to shit industrial town.
Armies can't just march through the wildy, anon. The Germans and Russians fought very costly battles for the control of roadways.
>>491532
ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>>491540
GROFAS mang.
>>491529
Armies require a lot of supplies, hence the saying 'an army marches in its stomach'. This demand was made even worse after tanks and airplanes became prominent - they require fuel, parts for maintenance and other things, making difficult logistics even harder. To constantly feed, equip and reinforce your army in hostile territory you establish supply trains and caravans and it's of the utmost importance that these can actually reach your troops, otherwise they're just feeding the enemy.
There was a Soviet army in Stalingrad. Walking around them would mean they'd be free to attack from behind and possible encircle you or completely deprive you of supplies deep into enemy territory.
>>491584
That's why instead of marching the Sixth Army straight into the city, you put them on rear guard so that shit doesn't happen.
>>491591
And what of supplies?
March around? The Second Panzer division had units that reached the outskirts of Moscow. It's not Guderian's fault Hitler was stupid.
>>491778
They also had about a dozen undefeated Sovet divisions they bypassed to get there, not to mention the million or so troops in and around Moscow itself.
Getting to the outskirts is nowhere near being in a position to actually take the city.
And this goes double for 1942.
>>491724
Again, that would be why the Sixth Army stopped marching. Rearguard action is meant to secure the supply routes for the main thrust.
>>491529
They did. It didn't work.
>>491540
That is what he did. Stalingrad was needed for flank defense of Army Group A which was tasked with taking the oil fields.. The soviets needed to hold the city in order to keep the Iranian lend-lease route open. Its a total myth that the reason Stalingrad was so contested was because of the city's name.
>>491529
Have you even seen a map of Russia? Stalingrad is nowhere near Moscow. The germans were at the gates of Moscow in 1941.
>>491532
You know where to go.
>>492001
I think he's sighing because the question is old, repetitive, and phrased in an incredibly ignorant manner.
>>492028
Fair enough but it's still obnoxious.
>>491529
because even if they took Moscow the commies would just relocate elsewhere, probably something around the Urals, taking the oilfields was far more important than taking moscow
>>491862
One recon detachment was kind of near Moscow for a few days in 1941. The Germans where nowhere close to performing the encirclement of the city that would have been necessary to capture and were so far out of supply that the incompetent 1941 Russians were able to launch an extremely successful counterattack against Army Group Center at this point with hardly any preparation and win. The Germans were NOT close to winning the Battle of Moscow, nor ever close to winning World War II.
>>492032
Yes, but it's /his/ obnoxious!
>>491778
>I have no idea that the ensuing Russian winter slowed the advance of German tanks, playing a decisive role in the loss at Moscow
>I'm also ignorant as shit about the fact it was a fight between von Kluge of AGC, and Guderian over the decisions to take Moscow
Armchair autists speak.
>>492426
Not him, but Typhoon stalled before the snow started falling. Logistical overstretched, not winter, was the bail in the coffin.
>>492439
Well I wouldn't doubt the logistical side, but German tank treads were not designed for the level of mud from the ensuing snow fall.
>>491529
because hitler wanted to take the city named after stalin... hitler wasn't a military genious, and he thought that taking stalingrad would've dealt a much bigger blow than taking moscow...
>>491595
I apologise for my spelling
Gröfaz
>>492320
Barbarossa was a mistake
Fyi Americans don't take towns.
If you recall, if an army occupies a town like that, then we just blow it up. The entire civilian population usually dies too.
See: every war ever.
t. slider
