[Is It Overrated] The Tiger Tank

 It has been described as the turning point of WWII, and as Germany's greatest defeat ever. It was raised to near mythological proportions in propaganda, and foreign newspapers said: The Germans have lost. You cannot defeat an army which has accomplished Stalingrad. But is the battle really deserving of this status? Lets see.

Casualties: Stalingrad is often used as an example on how the Russians bled the Germans and their allies to death. To quote the book WWII, the World in Flames:"Stalingrad is the cataclysm that engulfed the Axis and bled it dry of men." And looking at the figures, it really did destroy vast numbers of Axis troops.

Before Stalingrad, the Axis had 300,000 Romanians, 200,000 Italians and 150,000 Hungarians. After this battle,in January 1943, just 50,000 Romanians, 40,000 Italians and 35,000 Hungarians were still fit for combat. To make matters worst, the Italians were immediately withdrawn from their combat role to go to Africa. Germany lost over 430,000 men in Operation Uranus alone, with another 220,000 having been lost in Case Blau. In 4 months they had lost almost as many men as they did in the past three years of warfare. (1939: 40,000 troops, 1940: 150,000 troops, 1941: 800,000 troops) To make matters worst, while these losses were replaced within weeks or months, the number of troops in the front never reached 1942 levels again until late 1943, only to be lost again in Stalin's 10 blows.

To make matters worst, most of the men lost were the creme of the German army. The front line troops were the best of the Heer, chosen to spearhead the attack. These units also bore the brunt of the fighting. Germany never recovered from such a catastrophic loss.

Strategic importance: Stalingrad is near universally regarded as the turning point of WWII, when the balance of power and the initiative passed to the Russians. But, while it was the turning point of WWII, it wasn't a definite victory.

I've examined the Axis losses in an earlier paragraph, but the Soviets suffered more. Over 1.5 million Soviets were lost in the battle. Manpower wise, the Germans and Russians had suffered proportionally, but the Russians had managed to crush all of Germany's allies save Finland. Strategically this was a brilliant Soviet victory. The Germans were back at their starting position, having nothing to show for Case Blau except mountains of corpses and thousands of burnt out wreckages.

But, the victory wasn't definite. Guderien managed to inflict a crushing defeat at the Third Battle of Kharkov. In fact,Germany might have stood a chance if they had waited for Russian offensives, then counter attacked. But Hitler, being the strategic genius that he was, decided to attack instead, leading to the Battle of Kursk.

Loss of equipment: The Battle of Kursk is often cited as having destroyed vast numbers of Germany's tanks, and planes. But Stalingrad accomplished just as much destruction of German equipment. Half a years war production of Germany had been wiped off the map, with losses in tanks actually surpassing Kursk, the only difference being that these were mostly older tanks.

Meanwhile, while Russia too lost vast amounts of equipment, even more than Germany, these were actually manufactured in just 2 months, and so could be replaced easily. Lend lease was also finally coming in large quantities, while Germany was suffering from Allied bombing.

In conclusion, The Battle of Stalingrad is not overrated, and in fact carries just as much, if not more, strategic importance than it is known for.