Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Edit request

the article cites Sokolov data about 2 million KIA and MIA casualties which seems absolutely unrealistic. Soviet forces in Battle of Stalingrad were ~1,1 million soldiers (every soldier died twice?) and Soviet army in total were ~5,5 million people

i suggest to remove this casualties data 95.220.21.185 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that both German and soviet losses are not just Stalingrad, they are for all fighting on the Southern Front from July, which is way more than “Stalingrad”. 47.220.25.18 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The soviet forces 1,1 mils also are not for the city itself, it is for Southern Front. Total Soviet forces were 5,5 mils for all fronts. Loosing 2 mils KIA would mean 4-8 mils wounded resulting in destruction of the whole Soviet army which is absurd

At least read Sokolov page in Russian wiki with translator: he is a freak of Russian history science community, his "researches" are not based on any facts. It is ridiculous that they are used as a serious data here

nothing of the sort. Russians have terrible medicine with incompetent doctors. For every one killed, 1, maximum 2 wounded among Russians. Most of the Soviet wounded died.--Vaclaw1990 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Tatsinskaya Airfield

Tatsinskaya Airfield is named twice in the article but not linked to Tatsinskaya Airfield needs inline links to the article on Tatsinskaya Airfield 80.189.122.246 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Query on accuracy

I was reading the article recently and noted that in the intro it states the following "By the time the hostilities ended, the German 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army had been destroyed..." Now, as I understand it the German 6th Army was surrounded in the city along with the 14th Panzer corps of the 4th Panzer Army and these formations were definitely destroyed. However, the remainder of the 4th Panzer army was not surrounded. According to Glantz and others it fought continuously from November 1942 and even played a major role in The German February/March 1943 counter-attack. So why is it referred to as being destroyed in the Article intro? This is very strange. I mean, if the formation was destroyed then it shouldn't be in existence. The entire 6th Army was surrounded and destroyed and therefore went out of existence but that seems not to be the case with the 4th Panzer Army. Could someone help me with this. I am completely confused. Thanks. 86.183.72.121 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Re the above: I have read further on this (especially the Wikipedia article on Operation Winter Storm). It indicates that the 4th Panzer Army was responsible for the attempt to relieve the 6th Army in Stalingrad. After this was defeated, the Army nevertheless successfully withdrew to continue fighting in the Ukraine and formed the southern pincer of Manstein's counter-offensive in February/March 1943. To me this suggests continuous combat for the whole period. Now even taking into account necessary armour reinforcement of the 4th Panzer Army, it seems from the evidence that the 4th Panzer Army fought as a coherent unit and doesn't appear to have been destroyed at any point (although it was certainly reduced in strength). Could someone help by clarifying this rather confusing situation. If the formation was destroyed, as the Battle of Stalingrad article indicates, then it clearly could not have conducted the operations mentioned above. If it was destroyed then this means that there must be some doubt about the accuracy of the Operation Winter Storm article. Thanks again. (I have made no change to any of the above articles. I'm only really interested in finding out what the experts think about this and then leave it for them to decide if there ought to be any revisions. It is confusing though). 2A00:23C8:A442:8901:F8A6:1CC9:C205:E7C7 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

edit semi-protected, "Kessel" terminology

Kessel -> Pocket (military)#Kessel. Necessary context for a term-of-art that's not glossed in the article itself. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done Helpful link, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Kessel -> [[Pocket (military)#Kessel|Kessel]]. Necessary context for a term-of-art that's not glossed in the article itself. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Respond See above DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops sorry, bodged duplicate from server errors and sleep-confused editor.. And thank you! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)