Why didn't the Germans encircle Stalingrad? 

YT-STREAM (on my main channel) SATURDAY 2nd Oct! Come hang out and chat with us about our new Ju 87 book available here for another ~48h: stukabook.com/ Sat 2th Oct. 1pm Texas time / 7pm London / 8pm Central Europe

"One does not just "cross" the Volga" - [ancient Sean Bean Boromir memes activated]

The army that reached Stalingrad had been bled very badly and was far from full strength. I cannot imagine it had enough men, much less logistics, to support encircling an area that large. Even if you secure a bridge over the Volga what do you drive across that bridge? You require enough strength to turn towards the city and still defend towards the east. Paulus had already been asking for reinforcements and been told no significant amounts were available.

Could've, should've, would've, truth is they couldn't . Their ability to wage a "war of movement" and all its advantages had come to an end. The war had huge objectives, to be achieved in a limited time frame, with finite resources . Simply bit of more than they could chew..

havent watched the video so ignorant comment: i think a very simple answer is just that the volga is a very wide river thats really hard to get around to fully encircle the city. For most of september october and november the germans had the city completely cut off from land communications, but entire infantry regiments and divisions were being crossed by ferries during night time over the volga to constantly resupply the city. To stop that they'd have to cross the Volga themselves, and theyd face very fierce soviet resistance that'd make the attempt almost certainly a failure

To the north, the Volga looks to be about 3 miles wide; to the south, the east bank is a huge marshland.

1. about one km wide river in that area 2. enemy on the other side will counterattack with all forces and will have better logistics 3. looks like Germans were really good at underestimating their opponents

Hi! My home city is Volgograd, former Stalingrad. Just want to add some precise details. There were no bridges across Volga in 1940s for hundreds of kilometers up or downstream. The hydroelectric dam near Volgograd was build in 1950s and opened in 1961, and that was the first crossing point. The actual bridge was opened in 2004. I am not even sure bridges existed in Saratov and Astrakhan in 1942, both being the closest cities, both about 350km from Stalindgrad. And big thanks for your great videos!

Stalingrad is being covered by Indy Nidell's World War 2 in Real Time, and in brilliant, massive detail by @TIK in Battlestorm Stalingrad. Recommend both. WW2 is great for global perspective.

Also maybe if the Germans could snap their fingers and teleport 50 S-boots into the Volga river, because the Soviet Volga river flotilla is going to have something to say about building bridges across the Volga

Yep, a couple of years ago a visited Russia and actually went to Volgograd, I saw the might Volga river, can confirm, it seem to me more like a stretched out, never ending lake than a river itself, if you're going to cross it, you need a lot of planning, it would be almost like a full on amphibious operation than a land one.

Finally, absolute confirmation on the subject. Ever since I'd heard it wasnt mentioned in the original Case Blue battle plan I have been wondering about this. Thankyou so much Bernhard.

It's difficult to encircle and to just power through a city. Plus hindsight is 20/20. Can't wait for the Stuka book, going to look sweet with my Stuka aircraft.

Why not encircle the city? Imagine trying to cross the Volga (one of the biggest rivers in the world) while being shot at with everything the Soviets had on the eastern bank. Oh, and your forces are practically running on empty aready.

Havent watched the video yet but Stalingrad was no typical city, it was basically a 30 kilometer long strip along the Volga, only a few kilometers deep. Lack of petrol and other supplies would have prevented even a normal encirclement, let alone crossing the Volga.

Thank you for an interesting video. You mention how difficult it would have been to seize bridges over the Volga. Well, since there are only two bridges over the Volga near Volgograd/Stalingrad today, and both of them are in Volgograd, they would have been useless for encirclement purposes. And I don't think those two bridges existed back then, I've only heard about the Soviets shipping in reinforcements across the Volga on ferries and barges. The other closest bridges today are in Saratov, 200 miles/320 kilometers to the north, and in Astrachan, 200 miles/320 km to the south down by the Caspian Sea. Totally useless for encircling Stalingrad, if those bridges even existed back then. Also, the terrain to the south of Volgograd would be difficult if you wanted to cross the river there, as there the Volga flows through wetlands, at least 10 miles/16 km wide, but sometimes twice that. To the north, the terrain would be better, but there the river itself is at least 2 miles/3.2 km wide at its narrowest point, and often more than twice that. Not easy to get an army across that kind of river. Crossing the Don was nothing compared to crossing the Volga. That river is big, seriously big.

One thing is certain: the Soviets encircled the city.

Imagine losing half a million men trying to take a secondary objective...

Asking this question in that way gets at some of the major misconceptions around Stalingrad, or we could say the falsehoods spread by traditional historiography on the topic (starting with the German Generals). Which includes the idea that attacking directly was unsound and the 6th Army was defeated because they took unsustainable losses during the urban combat. This is not the case. The real reason is that the losses taken were not adequately replaced even though the German Army still had the resources to do so, and the reason for this is that the OKW was funneling the vast majority of replacements to Army Groups Mitte and Nord, even though it was Army Group B in the South which was taking the most losses by far. This is what cost them the battle of Stalingrad. 6th Army lost most of their troops between July and September, of which only the latter month was fought within the city, the rest of the losses were taken during the Don campaign. These losses were significant, and probably unsustainable strategically, but they were replaceable and if they had been adequately replaced the city likely would have fallen very quickly. As it was, the 6th Army was down by the equivalent of at least a couple of entire divisions when they reached the city, with their formations increasingly depleted, which only got worse as the battle went on in the city. In spite of this, they got extremely close to taking it several times, and were only stopped because Chuikov‘s 62nd Army received vital reinforcements at exactly the right moment. Unlike the Germans, the Red Army was funneling significant reinforcements into the city at a steady rate. All Paulus got was a couple of extra formations that were moved around operationally but cut holes in the front in other sectors of the Stalingrad Area. But no actual replacements for the overall losses of the entire Army Group, of which 6th Army suffered the brunt. So it wasn‘t that an intact army at full strength was destroyed at Stalingrad, or that the Germans lost countless additional reserves in the city: instead it was a depleted army receiving too few reinforcements very nearly succeeded in taking the city with its last reserves of strength, but once they were used up, it became impossible to take further ground despite a number of piecemeal attempts. But of course, even if they had enough reinforcements and took the city, there‘s a good chance the Soviet Counteroffensive would still have been devastating, the German Army still lost its capacity for strategic offensives and taking Astrakhan or Baku would still have been an impossible objective. Any ideas of a Germany victory by 1942 hinged on the idea that the Red Army might break if pushed just a little further and this was not going to happen in any case. As for any attempts to encircle the city: that was even more of an impossible task given the lack of troops and would have been unnecessary with enough replacements. The idea was to remove an enemy bridgehead and crucially to shorten the front. Attempting to cross the Volga would just make things worse.

Have anybody else watched TIK:s stalingrad series and went: Yes, i knew of this, im surely enlightened xD

Thx that's spot on to the time ghost WW2 coverage ! Much appreciated :)

Nice video. Seem like poor planning, Stalingrad was a huge communication nexus for the whole region. Taking it should have been part of the plan from the start.

The German military was concerned with capturing cities. Hitler, however, needed oil so his military machine could function. He was targeting the Caspian oil fields and Stalingrad was just in his way. He'd be fine with just pulling the cat's claws so to speak rather than wasting time trying to kill it. Stalin's the one who decided to make an major issue out of Stalingrad probably because it bore his name.

I mean the simple answer to why there wasn‘t a big encirclement is that they had lost the strategic capacity to do that. The last bigger encirclements happened during the Don campaign, but it was clearly the death of „Bewegungskrieg“. And even in 1941 when it was working they were taking staggering, unsustainable losses. Same during Fall Blau.

Build two bridges across the Volga and encircle Stalingrad? They're the Wehrmacht not your fairy godmother. The nearest bridge was about 500km upstream

While the German army was fighting for its survival in Stalingrad, hundreds of thousands of Axis soldiers with lots of equipment were stuck defending Tunesia. This Tunesia army required an overseas supply line that was under constant threat, requiring the attention of a significant part of the Luftwaffe for defense. Eventually, the Axis army in Tunesia could not be supplied enough and had to surrender. If the Axis had given up on North Africa quicker and withdrawn the armies in time then hundreds of thousands of Axis troops with equipment and lots of Luftwaffe would have been available to support the battle of Stalingrad, perhaps enough to turn that battle. It wouldn't have won the war (it would even have quickened the Allied Sicily invasion) but it certainly would have given the Axis army at Stalingrad a better chance to break the encirclement there..

A friend of mine told me one of the things that went wrong at Stalingrad was that after Paulus made it to the Volga in late August, 1942, he was supposed to chase the Russians into Stalingrad where the Luftwaffe was supposed to bomb them to death. But the Luftwaffe bombed Stalingrad before the Soviets retreated, which is to say that most of them survived, and then fortified the ruins (which made excellent cover). I am just trying to find out from anyone else if this description is accurate.

This is an example of what Indy Neidell meant by history does not occur in a vacuum.

Why didn't the Germans encircle Stalingrad? Answer: They couldn't

Very well done! A good explanation as to why the Germans didn't try to surround Stalingrad. The final and most critical point being the SIZE/width of the Volga River. It would require an undertaking similar to crossing the Northern Rhine or the Mississippi at St. Louis. The Germans didn't have the bridging materials and engineering manpower in that location at that time.

If Stalingrad had not been built on the west bank of the Volga then no doubt the Germans would have encircled the city. The Germans would have had to cross the Volga and take the east bank too. As long as the Soviets held the east bank then the German could not have completely taken the city. So a full frontal assault was needed. Even if the Germans had taken the city the Soviets would hold the east bank so could still cause the Germans huge problems.

The Germans were bleeding heavily and stretched the hell out of their already overstretched supply lines just to GET TO Stalingrad. To the north you had the heavy fighting around Rhzev. To the south you had the Caucasus. All had heavy fighting. Even on the approach to Stalingrad, Paulus was already complaining about his casualties and supply situation due to heavy fighting. So the idea of the Wehrmacht having the luxury of encircling Stalingrad just doesn't fly if one looks at what happened before the battle itself, how bad it was for the Germans.

Thank you for the most clear and concise explanation of why the German Army couldn't just encircle Stalingrad and let it wither on the vine. I had not considered the size of the Volga. That would be like trying to take Memphis by crossing the Mississippi above and below. You might be able to get temporary bridges across, but then you would use up so many precious resources just trying to defend that. And a river of that size has a will of its own and will not obey your wishes for very long. (When Heisenberg was on his death bed, Einstein came to visit him. They agreed that when Heisenberg got to Heaven he should ask God to explain relativity and turbulence. Heisenberg figured that God would agree with him that relativity was a crock. On the other hand, he did not think that even God could explain turbulence.) And Stalingrad was more of a long, defended line of fortifications than a city. What a trap that was.

Should have taken Astrakhan first : would have cut off Caspian + oil deliveries to Russia and then gone for oil fields to the South . Would have rendered Stalingrad strategically unimportant to be taken later.

The main objective of Operation Fall Blau, was for Friedrich Paulus' 6th Army Group to capture the oil rich Caucuses. The original plan had 6th Army split into Groups A & B. Group B would take Stalingrad, then advance to take Astrakhan. Doing this would block oil from reaching Moscow and guard Group A's flank. Group A would enter the Caucuses, and capture all oil production facilities. Group A's goal was to ultimately capture Baku. The goal of Germany's 1942 offensive was to obtain desperately needed oil resources.

Well, also, if you go across the Volga, then the forces you have on the other side of the Volga are going to be more difficult to reinforce and could easily get cut off by attacking Soviet armies. You're better off launching an offensive through the city on the coast of the Volga and using the Volga as natural barrier to Soviet reinforcements.

Simply because they couldn't; As a matter of a fact they were encircled, to encircled you got to have the means for it; Stalingrad is far away , the Germasn were like wise far from the pristine condition , they were worn out , much supplies were lacking the extension of the supply lines were enormous, besides that the germans logistics wwere mostly by train, very little transport trucks. They do not bother to evaluate right what the Russians could bring into the fight, numbers and the quality of the machines, the pz t34 and the KV's and others, while their main tanks were the pz 3 and 2. The Germans, till they were pushed back into Germany, they never defended, always attacked that is what they did in Sgrad, they resume going house to house, after that point in the war it was like a fight or flight response, they choose, or were forced to , to fight.

Never heard someone pronounce it Shtalingrad before lol

In a word: Halder. For Halder, Moscow was everything, Stalingrad was a distraction. He consequently did NOT supply AGS-B with the umph required to super-encircle Stalingrad. That would entail pulling panzers in a major way out of AGC. AGS-A could not be a panzer source because of Adolf's priority. It's fortunate for the world: AGS-B needed the panzers and 17th Army; AGS-A needed more motorized divisions -- less panzers and no 17th Army. The mountain campaign was a distraction... actually the wrong way to advance.

Simple answer! They couldn’t!

Because of a river?

I just finished "Death of Wehrmacht", noted in the sources for this video. Excellent read, and gives insight on the German tactics used in 1942.

They didn't control both sides of the Don that well.

watching TIKs battlestorm stalingrad series its pretty evident they didnt have the recources or logistical capabilities to even try with for a long time were not getting the reinforcements to maintain their preexisting offensive (thank halder and co), for an encirclement would have taken atleast 1/2 the total preexisting force extra if not double or more, been at far greater risk etc while for a fairly signifigant part of the time, german forces were pushing forward albeit in a slow pace with high attrition..

As with all military operations easier said than done...Thank you for your detailed analysis..much appreciated

The Germans reaching Stalingrad and the Volga was like that scene from My Way when the Japanese commander saw all the Soviet tanks cresting the hill after he lost 60% of his troops and his face was essentially 😫 Same vibes

There is a lot of discussion on the subject but in my opinion Stalingrad had not military significance and it was destroyed. The troops should then have moved on to the oil wells which were indeed of military significance.

Maps would really have added a lot to this presentation. I continually had pause your video and open another webpage to find the places you refer to on a map.

Excellent Video as always! I've often thought that part of the German thinking was that by not attempting to encircle the city the Germans not only avoided the enormous problem of crossing the Volga, but could count on it being a problem that the RUSSIANS had to deal with, given the location of the city. As I recall the city garrison was at its most vulnerable when the ice on the river was thick enough to prevent boats, but too thin to cross. Imagine the fate of large German force stuck on the Eastern side of the Volga suddenly cut off because of the ice floes. Anyway, very interesting, keep up the great work.

They didn't have a big enough compass

Bridging the lower course of the Volga? - Are you dreaming?! The railway bridge of Saratov (upriver from Stalingrad) is more than one mile (1.7 km) long (construction period 1930-35). The Soviets even considered building sub-Volga tunnels in the 1920s.

Cool, I was actually wondering this just the other day.

Complete encirclement (even if achieved) was not making sure the taking would follow shortly after, as is seen at the example of Leningrad (but there, too, was sometimes too incomplete/with exit/replenishment road/path)...

Hitler's ego IMHO. He absolutely wanted the city bearing Stalin's name for it's very large propaganda value. Stalingrad was also 'the new model Soviet city' of supposed progress under Stalin which upped the stakes even further. The ego's of two dictators produced a meat grinder of unimaginable suffering and horror. My Opa's brother died there in February of 1943. No explanation of how, why, just a simple state 'Verstorben' notice. If it was February it meant that he lived through the hellish starvation/encirclement phase where getting KIA was immensely better than getting wounded or captured.

From the diaries and books I have read I am convinced it is pretty straightforward. Hitler was in charge and he deemed the Russians on their last men. He also wanted to thrust south to the caucuses for oil. I don't understand the logic when both Leningrad and Moscow where not captured but he, he was a corporal! Any plan to encircle Stalingrad would be massive in scale, I am sure there where staffers that proposed this, but it would not fit Hitlers ambition and plans and would be dismissed instantly.

Because they couldn't, the river could supply them indifferently, also Stalingrad was a massive straight city run up the the rail line instead of a city that bloom out like most older city

this doesn't really make any sense to me as the Germans almost took the city after incredibly bloody fighting, wouldn't it had made more sense to use the same resources to pin down and circumvent then city instead of smashing your face into the wall? It's not like the Soviets were in a great position either even with a shorter supply line they used a MASSIVE counter attack to encircle the Germans in an area at least 3 times larger then the Germans would have needed.

This is a bit like asking why the Germans didn't realize that they were sitting on top of heaps of oil in Libya; in operation Crusader, my dad fought there and the oil ooouuuzeed out of the ground!!!!!!!

The army that reached Stalingrad had been bled very badly and was far from full strength.

Well it's not like they could learn from Napoleon, oh wait they could yet they didn't, and Unlike Napoleon that Reached Moscow by foot and do 30km a day, nazis had vehicles, tanks planes in a grouped army that could make 50km in an hour

Darn, had to ruin the 666 likes :(

OMG )) You pronounce Stalingrad sooo german! ) Love it! Great vid ) Love your channel!

Crossing the Volga is very hard but then you have to supply the army that crosses the river.

Screening the city and interdicting/cutting the Volga while severing soviet oil supply. 2 Army group sized tasks, on divergent axes, with one army group (south) split into 2 (A and B). Moving Von Manstein's 11th Armee- the conquerors of Crimea- from there to Leningrad instead of across Kerch Straits didn't help either. The oil was more important than a driving an army into a city, where its advantages are nullified by its incorrect use. The fixation on Stalingrad: like a moth to a flame.

well.... what kind of question is that even? because the Red Army denied the Wehrmacht to cross the Volga.... end of story....

A stream can be large or small. A river is large. A creek is fairly small - maybe knee or chest deep, and a brook is very small - can often be jumped over at places.

Could they have backed off and waited until the following spring to capture Stalingrad?

great, so this might to be the greatest error of German military (as well as general underestimate of USSR) and reason for their WWII failure.

My view is that the Germans were short on men to pull off an encirclement successfully.

Kein numbers , kein logistics ,weak bridges .very weak links , poor winter equipment . Yeah, that checks out...

Again , history made to be fun and easy …… thank you.

NAZIS - not Germans. "Why didn't the NAZIS encircle Stalingrad*". Among the dead and captured Wehrmacht soldiers there were people of many nationalities. Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, Ukrainians..

Did cross one flank but every thing got sucked in to stopping the Northern Jaw .No encirclement .

BATTLE OF STALINGRAD Whenever there is talk about Stalingrad, please consider the following information that is usually left out for anti German propaganda purposes: Context. During the war Germany’s population was 80 million inhabitants, and its army was fighting against the Soviet Union with 202 million inhabitants, reinforced by the unlimited resources of the United States, the British Empire, and another 30 allies. The German 6th Army was initially led by experienced Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau during the first phases of the war. After he died in January1942 he was replaced by his inexperienced chief of staff General Friedrich von Paulus. During the battle of Stalingrad 6th Army forces totaled 350,000 troops, including two Rumanian divisions. Upon entering Stalingrad on the 17th of September 1942, the 6th German Army clashed with the Soviet 62nd Army under General Vasili Chuikov, which was soon reinforced by the Soviet 16th Army under General Rokossovski, which saved the 62nd from collapsing under German pressure. For the next two months bloody house to house battles ensued, until 9/10ths of Stalingrad was in German hands. Then on the on the 19th of November, the Soviets launched a pincer attack on the northern and southern German flanks. The German 6th Army was encircled by the Soviet 66th and 24th Armies to the North, 65th and 21st Armies to the West, 57th and 64th to the South, and 5th to the Southwest. The German 6th Army, by then reduced to 235,000 troops after 64 days of combat, was battling a total of 7 Soviet Armies, totaling over a one million fresh troops. Nevertheless, under grueling conditions, freezing temperature, dwindling food, ammo and petrol supplies, the 6th Army resisted encirclement 71 days before surrendering on the on the 1st of February 1943. Still some German pockets of resistance withheld their positions until first days of March. 107,800 were taken alive, of only 6,000 remained alive 10 years later. All in all, around one million casualties on both sides, mostly Russian, and perhaps the bloodiest battle in history. The odds were 10 to 1 against the Germans. Their supply lines cut off, and hundreds of miles away. It was just a matter of time before the inevitable outcome. So, talk of bravery and a heroic victory by the Red Army over the Wehrmacht is just idle. The floodgate to invade and subjugate Europe by the Russians for the next 40 years was finally broken.

Stalingrad kinda reminds me of New Orleans how can you enircle that city with a lake to the north and swamps in the south lol o and btw the hole city is cut in half by the MISSISSIPPI !!! river

It's ironic how Putin (Russia) thought taking Ukraine would be just as easy as Hitler (Nazi Germany) thought taking Stalingrad would be. History ALWAYS repeats itself because dictators have short memories.

Good question Good reply

Why didn't the Germans encircle Stalingrad? Because fokin Wolga!Thank you for watching, please subscribe, and see you next time.

I found it particularly interesting how the wehrmacht initial plans only intended to put the city under artillery fire. Is there a book that analyzes the wehrmacht's orders and objectives in a compare/contrast with hitlers final directives? I'm really curious to get a view of how the wehrmacht may have fought the war without hitlers interventions.

I've asked myself more if it would have been an option to "encicle" the city only from the west and then dig in along the outside of Stalingrad and the Volga and focus more on Army Group B (AGB was at the Volga and at Stalingrad), espacially in replacements, reinforcements and supply and more heavy weapons for the romanian and hungarian troops. Then repell the soviet offensive and then continue the offensive in the caucasus in 1943 and take Astrakhan, Baku and the caucasus passes and then eliminate the rest of the soviet foeces in the caucasus during 1943/44. Although even if you managed to hold the Volga and clear the caucasus of soviet troops, you would still need to repair the oil fields (as the soviets made sure to only leave them behind completely useless) and transport the (enormous masdes of) oil all the way back to Germany to refine them and make fuel out of it and then get that fuel to the front lines. Since railways wouldn't be an option, as there were not enough for the sheer amount of oil and they were already clumped up with trains delivering supply, best option would be to transport the oil to ports in the black sea and use bulgarian and romanian ships to transport it to the balkan and from there to Germany. Alternativly you could also force Turky to open the Bosperus for Italy and then use their ships. Of course the soviets had their black sea fleet but that would desintigrate, if you took and held all soviet ports in the black sea.

No offense but this topic can't be serious. Encircle Stalingrad? With what forces, exactly? Anyone who could ask such silly question is simply unaware how ridiculously unprepared for such major operation the German army really was. Not to mention that what meager reserves the Germans have had were used to reinforce the push towards Maikop in the Caucasus.

The myth of Stalingrad is based on so many wrong stories, including the legend that Hitler wanted it as a symbolic trophy. 1. It was strategically an absolute reasonable decision to take out a city which was an important industrial and logistical center and to cut off the vital North-South connection of the Volga which was an important supply channel for the red army. 2. It was an equally sound strategic decision to focus on taking the oil resources in the Caucasus area which would have been vital for the Wehrmacht war efforts and equally weakening the Soviets. 3. The Wehrmacht had successfully captured 90% of Stalingrad and stood at the Volga and the truth is the Soviets were lucky that they managed to stop them from full success literally at the last minute. 4. It is undeniable that what followed resulted in a disaster for the Wehrmacht due to various circumstances and it’s easy to make criticism in hindsight and in particular blame Hitler for not evacuating the 6.army but objectively there were not really promising alternatives available and the decision to hold as long as possible and try whatever they could do to support them was neither ruthless nor crazy but under the given circumstances what most likely any other army would have done as well. 5. And while it is of course a tragedy that so many men were lost there, from a human as well as from a strategic perspective, let’s not forget that from the 90.000 men who finally surrendered to the red army only an unbelievably sad 6000 came back from Soviet captivity many years after the war. Therefore, from a strategic as well as human perspective it is certainly fair to say it made more sense and also the soldiers would have preferred it to die in combat in a sacrifice for their comrades than to die after immense suffering under cruel conditions in Soviet camps.

Why didn't they use gas to attack fortifying building or a steel plants?

That was the error. Stalingrad was just a faint move to go after oilfields nearby Caucasus mountain region. Stalingrad was just a shock and awe move so that the Red Army would divert their attention there and so the Red Army did. However Hitler underestimated the size and the composition of the Red Army and was pushed back and way back. The momentum was so great that Hitler was pushed back to his original line and on the brink of the Red Army crossing over the original line and so the Red Army did. 😆 Hitler did not realize how much armor tanks the Red Army had. Also, the impact of not having adequate Luftwaffe air cover to destroy massive Russian armored infantry divisions is noteworthy. Most importantly Hitler did not have enough fighter bombers to compensate for the large area coverage where the Red Army could strike from. Operation Barbarossa was a failure from the beginning for underestimating the Russian armor and infantry size. To take the Caucasus oilfields and extract any meaningful resource from them, Hitler should have overestimated the Red Army capability and brought more fighters and fighter bombers and more Panzer divisions to the Operation Barbarossa toward Stalingrad to halt incoming Soviet armor and infantry and plan to break the Red Army momentum at Stalingrad before paying attention to the Caucasus oilfields. Shock and awe can do so much. It is only temporary.

Because he couldn't cross the volga in the first place & couldn't stop the Russian from Regrupoing .

If you don't want to fight your enemy to the end, leave them somewhere ro escape to. A trapped animal will fight savagely to escape. So too will humans.

Guessing the krauts had reached their point for culmination in their advance. They simply lacked the combat power, food, fuel, vehicles, manpower, and ammunition to make it a real option. Over reach, engaged their limits

The answer should become very apparent to anyone who opens up a map of Stalingrad/Volgograd.

there was this huge river called the Volga that have to be crossed :)

I think I know the answer already but I will watch anyway.

I had this question since too long! Thank you for covering it.

Hitler and his high command underestimated the importance of having long range, heavy strategic bombers. Target Soviet logistics and factories and their ability to wage war is hamstringed.

I bet a dollar they want, but they can't, not enough mass to bite that city in freezing winter. but at the same time, they also discover that, straving but not kill a city that big will be a logistic nightmare to the soviets, keep it hostage as long as possible will seriously weaken the logistic supplies to the red army, women, children and elderly can't fight still have to eat. meanwhile the nazi side are all soldiers. however it's a double edge sword, supplies to nazi army are also tighten by the standoff and weather, which comes to a question, who's benefited from the situation and buy time for that. or lure enemies forces to gather around instead attacking from other fronts. if that's only soviets and nazi are involved, nazi may get what they want. but the soviets have allies supplies and raise attack on other fronts, meanwhile none of the axis countries can reach supplies line to help that far. it is interesting that in this 2021 no shoot war era, trace of similar tactics still be use. cities hold hostage, supplies shortage, this time countries didn't shoot bullets, they burn money, who gather more money and use it will win the war. forget freedom, justice, religion and ideology, none of those matter in this current ongoing war.

Leningrad would be easy to encircle fully. stalinggrad should only have been encircled on each side up to the river, not across it. then focus on moving along the river to the caspian coast

I was thought it was cuz ussr mass-produced t34, so German army wasn't powerful enough

Wrong question somehow. Why was the strategy chosen at all? Why did the German high command continue the campaign up to this point? Why on either side no one considered to draw a plan for exiting the conflict?

Why the germans didn't reach Vladivostok?

new password: german too weak but ussr was too strong

So many experts in the comments should do there own videos, a lot stating stuff that's already known

Germans could have easily taken the bridge had they attacked in 2010