Talk:Operation Uranus

Name of Stalingrad Front commander

Since the article deals at some length with the Stalingrad Front commander and his decision not to attack until the fog had lifted, I think his name should be mentioned. It appears from the Southern Front and Andrei Yeremenko articles that Yeremenko was the commander of Stalingrad Front at this time, but can that be confirmed? Pirate Dan (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Bellamy (Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War) has Yeremenko commanding the "front holding the southern half of Stalingrad" (p. 521). I can't find a mention of an overall front commander, but he gives Zhukov, as the Deputy Supreme Commander, overall responsibility for both Uranus and Mars, and Vasilevskiy as controlling the Stalingrad operation ie Uranus (pp. 526-7). EyeSerene^talk 17:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi from russia! I do not speak English. But I'll help you. Google translator) I'll simply write. Uranium = Vatutin Rokossovsky, eremanenko. Three fronts. Army Commander: Malinowski, Chistyakov, Baht, Romanenko, Chuikov and others.

Eremenko commandir the Stalingrad front. He is a hero. Eremenko, defenders of Stalingrad. But Stalin told Zhukov. End battle Rokossovsky (Don Front). You say Eremenko. Eremenko was offended. he suffered. Eremenko wrote in his diary about Zhukov very bad. But completing the battle Rokossovsky. . I will make a good article about Vatutin. He commanded the Southwestern Front. The main blow in the Battle of Stalingrad. Make it a translation for his Wikipedia. We read in the Russian German British American historians. They lie and make up .)))) It was a great victory for our people.Urslingen1 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want the truth about the Eastern Front. Refer to the Russian. We open archives in 2010.Urslingen1 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) write to me on Wikipedia, and other authors Russian wiki.Urslingen1 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good article

Hard to believe this wasn't covered already. Disagree with the notion that horse-drawn artillery was "obsolete equipment". The Germans used it for the entire war. You'll need a quote to back up that assertion. Seems to me most other nations outside of the British Commonwealth and U.S. also relied on horse-drawn artillery. Nothing "obsolete" about it in 1942 unless you have a reliable source stating that it was, indeed, Hitler's opinion that it was (the context of the comment I removed). "Obsolete" means that it is outmoded, but horse-drawn artillery was perfectly capable of doing the jobs expected of it. Indeed, in some types of Russian weather and terrain, it was superior to motor vehicles of the day.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference to back up that assertion. The fact that the Germans used horse drawn artillery throughout the war doesn't make it any less obsolete, it just means that the Germans had a deficient supply system. The sentence didn't claim that Hitler thought it was unreliable, the sentence clearly states that Hitler was confidence in the ability of his allies to support the Sixth Army's flank (despite obvious deficiencies). OK, so the sentence is already cited (#25). Please also see Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, pages 13 and 14, where it criticizes the German Army's lack of motorization (over the majority of the Wehrmacht). Also, David M. Glantz When Titans Clashed, pp. 27–30. Please see just about every book written on the Eastern Front. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would you refer to the sentence without actually quoting it? Quote it now for us? I don't believe what you're saying - it seems very much out of context. The method of moving the guns seems irrelevant to the ability of the Axis minor allies to withstand a counter-attack. Hitler is comparing the worth of his allies to his own troops. How likely is it that he's going to say "look, they suck, their guns have horses" when 95% of his own guns are - - pulled by horses. It makes no sense, and it sends a false message. I think you're reading the sources wrong, but provide the source here for us all to see, and we can discuss further.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on the army's lack of motorization as a whole are also completely being conflated with horse-drawn artillery batteries - they are two separate issues. One is under discussion here - the other is not.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You are interpreting the sentence out of context; and please, stop removing the sentence (it is already cited). The sentence clearly states that Hitler thought that his allies were strong enough to hold Army Group B's flanks. The sentence then says that in reality this wasn't true because of their obsolete equipment, including horse drawn artillery. I don't understand we're you're getting that Hitler thought his allies had obsolete artillery, when the sentence doesn't say that at all. Because you don't believe me doesn't give you the right to take out cited material out of the article; or, can I go around articles deleting entire cited passages because I don't believe that that reference really makes that claim? Why don't you buy or check out the books, and see for yourself?

1. Glantz; "The vast majority of the German Army throughout WOrld War II consisted of foot-mobile infantry and horse-drawn artillery and supplies, sometimes forcing the mechanized and motorized spearheads to pause while their supporting units caught up by forced marches."
2. McTaggart; "The equipment in the three allied armies was mostly obsolete, some dating back to World War I. Much of the artillery was horse-drawn, and heavier caliber weapons were sorely lacking."
3. Beevor; "Yet the Wehrmacht, although famed for its Blitzkrieg, also depended on over 600,000 horses to tow guns, ambulances and ration wagons. With the vast majority of the infantry divisions on their feet, the overall speed of the advance was unlikely to be much faster than that of the Grande Armée in 1812."

The army's mobility, on a whole, was effected by the horse-drawn artillery, so it's very relevant. Please, so unless you have citations of your own, stop deleting that sentence. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue was, and is, your drawing of the wrong conclusions from the source material. The sentence at issue is this:

While Adolf Hilter expressed confidence in the ability of allied troops to protect German flanks,[24] in reality these units were issued largely obsolete equipment, including horse-drawn artillery,[25][26] while in many cases the poor treatment of enlisted personnel by officers caused poor morale

My objection is to the inclusion of "horse-drawn artillery" after "obsolete equipment". I still say you're drawing a conclusion not supported by the sentences you cite. McTaggart was talking about the small-calibre of the guns, the fact they were horse-drawn was incidental. Beevor's comment on horses was relative to the entire army. So was Glantz's.

An artillery regiment operates best when it is dug in and surveyed in, preferably to the theatre grid. This takes time. The ability to move by truck or horse is relatively inconsequential as the infantry moved by foot in the vast majority of the German Army (no point zipping around your guns by truck if your infantry is plodding forward at snail's pace). Incidentally this was true in the British Army too - no infantry battalion outside the handful of armoured divisions had its own troop carrying vehicles. And it was the same in the Russian, Japanese, French, etc. armies. The ability to move artillery batteries by truck was a nice to have, but in the armies of the day, not a need to have. Horse-drawn artillery simply wasn't "obsolete" but more importantly, none of the three sentences you are using as a "source" explicitly say that they were. You're simply not reading them properly.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand we're you're getting that Hitler thought his allies had obsolete artillery, when the sentence doesn't say that at all. - this is the whole point of my objection, it does say that, so I've tried a rewording. Hopefully that will be less objectionable than deleting anything.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also important to consider why horse-drawn artillery can be considered obsolete, especially for Operation Uranus. Romanian artillery was targeted by Soviet batteries during the opening bombardment. While horse-drawn artillery may fare better on muddy roads (compared to German armored vehicles; this is not true when comparing to Soviet armored vehicles), they don't in regards to surviving and providing counter battery fire. While a self-propelled piece can "shoot-and-scoot", a horse-drawn artillery piece (which will inevitably be fixed in position) cannot. I'd like to point out that the Second World War was "revolutionary" for the Red Army in that regards; the Second World War turned the Red Army into one of the most mechanized armies in the world. Horses will never be completely obsolete, as mechanization will always have difficulty traversing terrain; but the notion that they are generally obsolete remains true. Cooper, in his book, has a lot on the supposed mechanization of the Wehrmacht and the disadvantages brought by horse-drawn artillery and the horse-based supply system, as well as the lack of motorization in most of Germany's infantry divisions. I would suggest buying the book; it's a very good source on the German Wehrmacht (even if better histories of German operations in the Soviet Union exist).

In regards to McTaggart, I think you are trying to isolate my quotation of his text and ignoring the fact that he specifically mentions horse-drawn artillery (before he even mentions the caliber of the guns). In any case, of all the armies you provide examples, none of those had modern armies prior to the end of the Second World War (and all armies rid themselves of horse-drawn artillery after the end of the Second World War). The German "decision" to have horse-drawn artillery was not based upon the fact that their infantry was largely unmotorized; well it was, but not for the reasons you state. There was just clearly a lack of trucks. Had the Germans had the trucks to motorize their entire army, then obviously they would have also motorized the infantry. I just think that you are taking things out of context. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit is fine, I guess, if we must compromise. The citations, however, are now worthless since they were describing the disadvantages in using horse-drawn artillery (as opposed to claiming that the Romanians were using horse-drawn artillery). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sentence doesn't say that. The sentence says that while Hitler expressed confidence in the Romanian troops, IN REALITY they were not as able as Hitler thought because of ... JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps the biggest waste of time argument I have seen in my time here. The sentence says HITLER THOUGHT they were strong allies, BUT IN REALITY they weren't...--Patton^t/c 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone understands what it said. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jon and Patton. Can't see what the fuss is about here. IP editor is selectively reading sources and complaining about nothing, essentially. Skinny87 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that the sentence is fixed, there is nothing to complain about. :-) Glad I sorted out. You're welcome. 139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Austria??

Why is Austria shown as a separate country on the map, rather than as part of Germany? 68.113.166.243 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still a country, and a nationality. SGGH ^ping! 09:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But it wasn't a sovereign nation at the time. If there's no border drawn between Germany and Poland, there shouldn't be one between Germany and Austria either. 68.113.166.243 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anschluss, Nazi Germany. According to these articles there wasn't a border between Germany and Austria. And the map in the Nazi Germany says that in 1942 there wasn't a border. So, can anyone fix the map? Sorry for my English, by the way :-) Dr. Klim (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Term

Is there no Russian term for this operation that could go in the lead? SGGH ^ping! 09:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Uran (Уран)--79.111.173.76 (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There was an adult picture apparently from a sex related article posted as the article's main template. I changed it to another picture from this article as I didn't know what the original template was. I hope someone can sort this out. 193.6.150.66 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think having an English article entitled "Operation Ur Anus" on the front page, without locking editing straight away, is an invitation to vandalism :p --77.254.37.157 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Images imbalance

Uranus was a Soviet initiative. Yet all the images are of axis generals and forces. Can we see some of the Soviet commanders and what their forces looked like please. Lumos3 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's five photos, and they're all Axis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.62.12 (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a single photo of Soviet forces and/or officers. This page is not an example of private german memoirs, but it implies biased view on the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.149.94 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thirded! As of 2019, there are only four pictures, all of them Axis. If one weren't paying attention, one would think Uranus was a German operation... (To be fair, this sort of problem is widespread on Eastern Front articles, not just here. I don't know where one would discuss/tackle this problem in a more general way...) The andf (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Italian commander?

Any thoughts about adding the Italian commander to the info box? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Italians weren't much involved in Uranus, if they were involved at all. Though they get heavily involved in the following soviet offensive operation Saturn.

Ereinon (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian Translation

Couldn't we have a translation of Operation Uranus to Russian (in Cyrillic) on the first line right after the boldfaced article title. For example, look at the first line of the article on Moscow. - RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did it. It is Операция «Уран» in Russian. --Dr. Klim (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler Commander?

In the info box you have Adolf Hitler as a commander whereas Stalin is not listed, it seems that this implies major tactical decisions made by Hitler and my understanding is that, in general, he was responsible for major troop movements but not individual tactical decisions. Could someone clarify why one is included and not the other? SADADS (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of Stalingrad Front commander

Since the article deals at some length with the Stalingrad Front commander and his decision not to attack until the fog had lifted, I think his name should be mentioned. It appears from the Southern Front and Andrei Yeremenko articles that Yeremenko was the commander of Stalingrad Front at this time, but can that be confirmed? Pirate Dan (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Bellamy (Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War) has Yeremenko commanding the "front holding the southern half of Stalingrad" (p. 521). I can't find a mention of an overall front commander, but he gives Zhukov, as the Deputy Supreme Commander, overall responsibility for both Uranus and Mars, and Vasilevskiy as controlling the Stalingrad operation ie Uranus (pp. 526-7). EyeSerene^talk 17:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Beware of the confusion : when talking about the red army most of the time "front" designate a military unit, roughly equivalent to German field armies. And Ieremenko was indeed commander of the Stalingrad front at this time. Vassilievski was "stavka representative", which means he was in charge of monitoring and coordinating the 3 fronts (Stalingrad, Don and Southwest) involved in the operation.

Ereinon (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi from russia! I do not speak English. But I'll help you. Google translator) I'll simply write.

Eremenko commanded the Stalingrad front. He is a hero. But Stalin told Zhukov. Check out the battle will Rokossovsky (Don Front). You say Eremenko. Eremenko was offended. he suffered. Eremenko wrote in his diary about Zhukov very bad. But completing the battle Rokossovsky. . I will make a good article about Vatutin. He commanded the Southwestern Front. The main blow in the Battle of Stalingrad. Make it a translation for his Wikipedia. We read in the Russian German British American historians. They lie and make up .)))) It was a great victory for our people.Urslingen1 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want the truth about the Eastern Front. Refer to the Russian. We have discovered the archives in 2010.Urslingen1 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) write to me on Wikipedia, and other authors Russian wiki.Urslingen1 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Lieutenant Gerhard Stöck - incorrect

'Romanian Lieutenant Gerhard Stöck...' I believe Stock was the German liason officer to the Romainians. He was also a noted former olympic athlete.

Walter S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.195.116 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be right. At least according to the Gerhard Stöck article. But this area is not speciality, so I would ask one of you Smart people to act. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Tank numbers

There are two conflicting numbers for Soviet tanks, both cited to the same source, I think its a typo. In the infobox it says 894 tanks, but in the section Soviet forces involved it says 804 tanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be 894 --KomBrig (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagic

Vi: Tôi vừa vẽ xong ảnh này, các bạn nếu thấy tốt thì cứ sử dụng cho bài viết nhé :D. Lưu Ly (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How/why were the Germans lulled into being trapped ?

This article describes well what happened. I'm left thinking "how/why did experts of war like the Germans leave their flanks so weak and allow themselves to be surrounded ?". Did they over-estimate the strength of their Romanian and Hungarian allies, underestimate the Soviet strength, believe that they were actually about to break right through the Russians ? This sort of total encirclement of a German army is just about unique - was Paulus the worst general in German history, was he badly advised, was he given false information by his allies on the flanks, did the Soviets brilliantly disguise their real strength, or was he forced to carry out a typically high-risk Hitler plan which could only work against some inferior enemy : "head of Army General Staff General Franz Halder had been dismissed in September after his efforts to warn about the danger which was developing along the over-extended flanks of the Sixth Army and the Fourth Panzer Army" and "Hitler expressed confidence in the ability of non-German Axis units to protect German flanks,[28] in reality these units relied on largely obsolete equipment and horse-drawn artillery, while in many cases the harsh treatment of enlisted personnel by officers caused poor morale.[29] In regard to mechanization, the First Romanian Armored Division was equipped with around 100 Czech-built Panzer 35(t) tanks,[24] armed with a 37-millimeter (1.5 in) gun[30] ineffective against the armor of Soviet T-34 tanks". This needs to be discussed to provide the How and Why to support the What. As I read it, it seems that if a student officer at a war college had proposed this German campaign plan he would have been given a fail mark, but Hitler and his inner circle were blind to reason. Correct ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't have time to properly include this in the article, but here are a few answers, from different source as this matter have been heavily discussed by historians:

- Germans overestimated their forces, strategically as they didn't have the means of their ambitious case blue plan and tactically as so far they had rather easily repulsed every soviet offensive

- the German intelligence services failed terribly. They misled the high command in thinking the soviets were strong enough to lauch 2 major offensives (Mars and Saturn) at the same time, hence Russian preparation on the Don river were expected to be done for local attacks and not for a strategical scale offensive.

- the German plan case blue, which led to this overextension of the flancs, was a kind of a gambit : it was supposed to give such a powerfull blow to the Red Army that it wouldn't be able to continue the war, so overextended flancs didn't really matter in front of a dying opponent.

- Operation Uranus was a grand premiere and even the Russian command was unsure of its results until the end (I'd say until the end of operation Wintergewitter in the end of december).

- Russians used military deception (maskirovka) to the fullest, transmitting major orders only verbaly, creating false radio traffic, moving only at night etc... hence the 5th tank army and the Don front were only detected at the very last moment, way to late for the Germans to react.

- 6th army had a chance to escape encirclement by abandoning Stalingrad arround the 21-22 december (before the junction of the soviet armies). Paulus and all his senior officers have issued such a proposal, but this was refused by only 2 key characters : Hitler and von Manstein that was Army Group Don commander and Paulus direct superior.

I am sure that we can find many other reasons, it's easy to judge when we know the end of the story, but things are always blurry behind the fog of war.

Ereinon (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of biased references

Hello,

"McTaggart" and "McCarthy & Syron" seems to relie on old German sources that are known to be severly biased. As the German propaganda during the war they tend to minimise German failures and to blame their Romanian allies.

Everything linked to their work should be doublechecked with more "concensual" authors imho (such as Beevor or Glantz)

Ereinon (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break

I had enough of hearing that our army was weak. You know what? We did just as good during Uranus as the Germans during Winter Storm. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Inner encirclement"  ?

In the penultimate para of the Aftermath section is the phrase "the distance between the outer and inner encirclements". I've just read the whole article (which is good) and I believe that only the outer encirclement has been mentioned before. Boscaswell talk 18:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

casualties

Dont u ppl think that we should include the 200,000 ish casualties? or else , wait. is uranus only encirclement or is it the annhilation of the pocket? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E0CC:8300:24F9:2885:40B:FACF (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Romanian army SUCKS like they cant even beat the red army.

they lost 100,000 plus men and inflicted like 26,000 casualties. they are worse than the untrained volkssturm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E0CC:8300:24F9:2885:40B:FACF (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Axis Air Forces

Were there not other axis air forces involved in the operation that had ground forces that didn't take part in the Operation like the Italians?Originalcola (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

The paragraph that begins "On 22 November Soviet forces began to cross the Don River..." is very confusing. It starts as it should with events of 22 November. It then digresses starting with "Meanwhile, on a later date of Dec.13, the 26th Tank Corps split of southwards along the Liska river inlet in a small advance towards a bridge near the town of Nish Tschirskaya" (and perhaps "split of" should be "split off"). It later returns to the events of 22 November (the sealing of the Stalingrad pocket. I cannot tell if various information in the middle of the paragraph applies to 22 Nov. or 13 Dec. For example, which day did "a bombardment from BM-13 Katyusha rocket launchers" occur?

I see no reason for the events of 13 Dec. to be in this paragraph at all. They should be deleted or moved to another part of the article. I would do it, but as I said cannot figure out whether some items are for 22 Nov. or 13 Dec. Johnmastell (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)