Operation Uranus, how was it?


Operation Uranus is one of the most tactically and strategically verified operations of the Great Patriotic War. Moreover, the value of "Uranus" is difficult to overestimate. If the attempt to encircle large enemy forces near Stalingrad were not successful, then the Red Army could not only lose Stalingrad, but also be completely defeated on this front - with the subsequent exit of the Nazis to their cherished goal, which was Caucasian oil.


The famous historian Alexei Isaev shares with the audience of the Tactic Media channel his thoughts on the operation of the Soviet troops near Stalingrad. It touches on the topic of several so-called “planetary” (by their name) operations, including both “Uranus” and “Mars” with “Small Saturn”. The expert notes that the Soviet command developed operations taking into account the involvement of personnel and military equipment in them according to the specifics of a particular area.

Alexey Isaev:

Near Stalingrad there is a tank-accessible area, near Rzhev there are forests.

Operation Uranus itself, as you know, was intended as a strike from the flanks of an enemy grouping that wedged itself into the defense of the Red Army. Moreover, the stake was placed on the fact that the enemy flanking groups were not as strong as the central sector, on the assumption that Romanian formations acted on the flanks. Their fighting efficiency was significantly lower than that of the Wehrmacht. But by the time the Soviet operation "Uranus" began, the Nazis had seriously strengthened their flanks, creating a fairly deep defense (in places more than 5 km). The Soviet command emphasized a powerful artillery strike.

Rating from the historian:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lamata 3 February 2020 10: 38 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Eternal glory to our soldiers !!! My cousin died there at age 21, another cousin came from Stalingrad to Koenig.
  2. Tiksi-3 3 February 2020 10: 39 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Something is not fair bypassing the battle for Voronezh .... where in terms of intensity, losses, bitterness and importance - not a bit was inferior to the battle for Stalingrad. the question is why?
    1. Alexander Suvorov 3 February 2020 10: 54 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      Tiksi-3 (Dmitry)
      Something is not fair bypassing the battle for Voronezh .... where in terms of intensity, losses, bitterness and importance - not a bit was inferior to the battle for Stalingrad. the question is why?
      The same can be said for Rostov-on-Don. The point here is most likely that the battle for Voronezh, and for Rostov, and for Rzhev did not have such strategic consequences as the battle for Stalingrad. A radical turning point in the war occurred precisely near Stalingrad, and finally we got the initiative already near Kursk. And then, no one wanted to bring to light the loss of God under the same Rzhev or Voronezh, and to put it mildly, the not very successful actions of the Marshal of Victory, too, were somehow not to advertise.
      1. novel66 3 February 2020 10: 59 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Sychek, she is so ..
      2. Tiksi-3 3 February 2020 11: 14 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        for Voronezh, and for Rostov, and for Rzhev did not have such strategic consequences

        you are mistaken, the battle for Voronezh was of strategic importance .... both for Moscow and the USSR as a whole .... the only city in the USSR in which the Germans could not appoint a burgomaster and (policemen) for destruction is comparable to Stalingrad, is among 12 the world's most destroyed cities ... the number of those killed in the battle is one of the largest in the Great Patriotic War, 26 German divisions were destroyed, the 2nd Hungarian army (fully), the 8th Italian and parts of the Romanians, from our side died about 400000 Soviet soldiers! 212 days passed the front through the city
      3. major147 3 February 2020 13: 38 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        Tiksi-3 (Dmitry)
        Something is not fair bypassing the battle for Voronezh .... where in terms of intensity, losses, bitterness and importance - not a bit was inferior to the battle for Stalingrad. the question is why?
        The same can be said for Rostov-on-Don. The point here is most likely that the battle for Voronezh, and for Rostov, and for Rzhev did not have such strategic consequences as the battle for Stalingrad. A radical turning point in the war occurred precisely near Stalingrad, and finally we got the initiative already near Kursk. And then, no one wanted to bring to light the loss of God under the same Rzhev or Voronezh, and to put it mildly, the not very successful actions of the Marshal of Victory, too, were somehow not to advertise.

        Rostov-on-Don was twice lost and taken back, and Germans occupied Voronezh only half. They were not allowed over the Voronezh River. Both cities are dear to me. Born in Rostov, childhood passed in Voronezh on Mira Ave at the station, now I live in Rostov again.
        1. Berber 3 February 2020 15: 20 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Nothing to argue about, men. Everywhere our relatives perished. And it does not matter whether it is a strategic or not a strategic battle. We will just remember them.
        2. Old Michael 4 February 2020 09: 19 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Germans occupied Voronezh only half. They were not allowed over the Voronezh River.

          It was seen in memoir literature that if it were not for the heroism of the defenders of Voronezh, then under Stalingrad everything would have been much worse.
          Once he asked a veteran why Voronezh did not receive the title of a hero city? He replied that there were some shoals, up to betrayal, on the part of the party organs, including could not evacuate the archives of the regional committee. But the details and degree of certainty are unknown to him.
    2. Lamata 3 February 2020 11: 51 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Yes, unfortunately, as not everything is covered, my son is fond of military history. But he doesn’t know about Voronezh and Khakrkov, they don’t cover what a vague idea of ​​Vyazma and Rzhev has to fill in the gap)))
  3. rocket757 3 February 2020 12: 22 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    And there were no small, unimportant battles and battles in that war! Glory to all the soldiers who defended our homeland!
    1. Tiksi-3 3 February 2020 12: 29 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      But there weren’t small ones in that war

      that's for sure !!!!, but why don't they talk about many, many battles?
      1. rocket757 3 February 2020 12: 47 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        We have so many things DON'T FORGET! all sorts of books are written, films are made, but the people's memory is one for all and all.
        I don’t know how to capture all the exploits, events, battles. At a minimum, create museums, monuments to places of military glory of our soldiers.
        Something like this, but it can be done differently.
      2. Krasnodar 3 February 2020 22: 06 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Tiksi-3
        but why don't they talk about many, many battles?

        Stalingrad is the first surrender of German troops during WWII, led by a whole marshal
        1. WILL 3 February 2020 22: 45 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: Krasnodar

          Stalingrad is the first surrender of German troops during WWII, led by a whole marshal

          Krasnodar, Correct you, Friedrich Paulus - was Field Marshal !!! yes
          1. Krasnodar 3 February 2020 23: 09 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Insuldigung ze beat - the whole FIELD Marshal! laughing
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. ccsr 3 February 2020 12: 57 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Moreover, the value of "Uranus" is difficult to overestimate. If the attempt to encircle large enemy forces near Stalingrad were not successful, then the Red Army could not only lose Stalingrad, but also be completely defeated on this front - with the subsequent exit of the Nazis to their cherished goal, which was Caucasian oil.

    I believe that this is not true, because the Germans no longer had the strength to move further after Stalingrad, and this was confirmed by the further course of the summer company of 1943, when they could not defeat our troops on the Kursk Bulge having mobilized all their capabilities. So even the loss of Stalingrad would not lead to the defeat of the front - the Germans themselves would be afraid to force the Volga and most likely would gain a foothold there.
    By the way, they approached the Caucasian oil fields in the summer of 1942, so if they had the strength, they would have captured our fields without the Battle of Stalingrad.
    The loss of Stalingrad would have dealt a greater psychological blow to our country, and of course would have hindered the delivery of oil from the Baku region. Although it is already clear that German bombers could sink our barges without capturing Stalingrad, taking off from more distant airfields, if they had the strength and capabilities. Therefore, without at all belittling the significance of the outstanding Uranus operation, I still disagree with the view that the loss of Stalingrad would lead to disaster and breakthroughs of our entire front.
  6. Evgenijus 20 February 2020 17: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is a pity that in Soviet times, we were presented with a truncated history of the Battle of Stalingrad at school and further in high schools. Almost without details, except for the defenders in Pavlov’s house. And heroism was massive, but to show all the exploits means to show all the details of the battle. To this, the Soviet leaders did not have forces. Therefore, many heroic pages of this battle are hidden.