Fourth Panzer not diverted to the Don crossing

[Onkel Willie]

Von Kleist remembered: "The 4th Panzer Army was advancing on my left. It could have taken Stalingrad
without a fight, at the end of July, but was diverted to the south to help me crossing
the Don. I did not needs it's aid, and merely congested the roads I was using.
When it turned north again, a fortnight later, the Russians had gathered just
sufficient forces at Stalingrad to check it."

Source

Simple question: what happens if Hoth's Fourth Panzer Army isn't diverted and instead moves to Stalingrad together with Paulus' Sixth Army, capturing the city with relative ease some time in August? Case Blue probably still won't work as envisioned by Hitler, I guess, but the Volga has now been cut which at the least will mess with the Soviet logistical/fuel situation. What effects will the German capture of Stalingrad have beyond that?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If the Case Blue Plan had been stuck to Stalingrad would have been reached and taken by the end of July and the Soviet armies that held the approaches to the city in August scattered before they could actually deploy. It was one of the major blunders of the war. With Stalingrad falling without much of a fight and proper defenses being able to be set up around the city (and without the drain the city represented) Soviet morale would be at an all time low and Stalin would probably waste vast forces trying and failing to retake the city; historically he did order several counterattacks from the north of the city on the flank between the Don and Volga that failed miserably with horribly disproportionate losses to the Soviets. 4th Air Fleet would be freed up from the enormous burden that the fight in Stalingrad represented, so Soviet forces along the Don to the north of Axis lines would be hammered from the air. If the Soviets persist with counterattacks to take back 'Stalin's City' then they pretty much burn out their forces in a more lopsided version of Rzhev.

The issue is it is difficult to say what happens then for the rest of the year and whether Operation Uranus even happens or succeeds. Lot's of butterflies, but Stalin will certainly demand major costly counterattacks to retake the city, but they will happen in circumstances very favorable to Germany and unfavorable to the Soviets.

 

[Onkel Willie]

If the Case Blue Plan had been stuck to Stalingrad would have been reached and taken by the end of July and the Soviet armies that held the approaches to the city in August scattered before they could actually deploy. It was one of the major blunders of the war. With Stalingrad falling without much of a fight and proper defenses being able to be set up around the city (and without the drain the city represented) Soviet morale would be at an all time low and Stalin would probably waste vast forces trying and failing to retake the city; historically he did order several counterattacks from the north of the city on the flank between the Don and Volga that failed miserably with horribly disproportionate losses to the Soviets. 4th Air Fleet would be freed up from the enormous burden that the fight in Stalingrad represented, so Soviet forces along the Don to the north of Axis lines would be hammered from the air. If the Soviets persist with counterattacks to take back 'Stalin's City' then they pretty much burn out their forces in a more lopsided version of Rzhev.

The issue is it is difficult to say what happens then for the rest of the year and whether Operation Uranus even happens or succeeds. Lot's of butterflies, but Stalin will certainly demand major costly counterattacks to retake the city, but they will happen in circumstances very favorable to Germany and unfavorable to the Soviets.

If it does turn into a lopsided Rzhev, then the Soviets probably won't have the muscle left to pull off Uranus. That begs the question what the Germans will do? They could go for Leningrad, a second try at Moscow, go for Astrakhan to cut off the oil completely or try to go into the Caucasus directly.

 

[Wendigo]

Best case scenario for the Reich is that Stalingrad is taken, Stalin goes nuts and starts a major series of purges, a civil war starts, Stalin dies, and then you get AANW.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If it does turn into a lopsided Rzhev, then the Soviets probably won't have the muscle left to pull off Uranus. That begs the question what the Germans will do? They could go for Leningrad, a second try at Moscow, go for Astrakhan to cut off the oil completely or try to go into the Caucasus directly.

Depends, if they suffer as many losses as they did historically in Stalingrad, just outside the city, perhaps a bit more, while the Germans suffer far less, the Soviets still have the strength for Uranus and parts of Little Saturn, but the Germans are more able to defend the flanks or fight their way out of the encirclement if it does happen, while 4th Air Fleet is much more capable of fighting throughout 1942 and into 1943. I'm wondering if it might just be roughly similar for the Soviets in terms of losses, while being far less severe for the Germans, though perhaps with Stalin being willing to remove more generals for failures. I wonder too at what point Soviet morale is really negatively impacted by the loss of Stalingrad and inability to even contest it or retake it. Without the Stalingrad disaster, say due to the Soviets being too weak for Uranus, after the Soviet attempt in 1942 to break the siege of Leningrad is defeated by Manstein he will attack Leningrad per Operation Nordlicht, just in October/November 1942 instead of being transferred to Stalingrad with 11th army. No second try at Moscow in 1942. Astrakhan is probably not going to happen, as the entire point of capturing Stalingrad to was set up a flank guard for the Caucasus push. Likely Army Group B just sits on the Don and beats of Soviet attacks while the offensive action happens in the Caucasus and Leningrad.

Best case scenario for the Reich is that Stalingrad is taken, Stalin goes nuts and starts a major series of purges, a civil war starts, Stalin dies, and then you get AANW.

Basically ASB. Stalin would go nuts and probably through his forces into a meat grinder to retake Stalingrad and remove generals that fail, as I said a less favorable Rzhev for the Soviets. Perhaps Soviet losses then prevent their Winter 1942-43 counteroffensives.

 

[CalBear]

Best case scenario for the Reich is that Stalingrad is taken, Stalin goes nuts and starts a major series of purges, a civil war starts, Stalin dies, and then you get AANW.

Considering how AANW finishes, I would have to say that "best case" is a bit of a reach.

To your original question -

A lot depends on what Hitler would do once he had the West Bank of the Volga in his control. If he actually followed the original plan and drove into the Caucuses and succeeded in securing the oil fields (even with having to virtually rebuild the infrastructure after the Soviets blow the existing facilities sky high), it changes the entire complexion of the war. If, however, he follows his general pattern and get overly ambitious things could easily fall apart.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A lot depends on what Hitler would do once he had the West Bank of the Volga in his control. If he actually followed the original plan and drove into the Caucuses and succeeded in securing the oil fields (even with having to virtually rebuild the infrastructure after the Soviets blow the existing facilities sky high), it changes the entire complexion of the war. If, however, he follows his general pattern and get overly ambitious things could easily fall apart.

What do you think Stalin would actually do in this case? I know we've discussed the plausibility of Stalin's reaction in your AANW and agreed that it wasn't that likely he would got that far, so what do you think it most likely for him to do? And do you think Uranus would still happen or would Stalin burn up his reserves trying to take back Stalingrad at all costs or prematurely launching an attack on the Don River flank before the river froze?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I agree that this was one of the major blunders of the war, and a "make sure you take Stalingrad (and Astrakhan first and deal with the Caucasus later" would have been a major improvement on the German strategy, and really hurt the Soviets without there being much they could do to counter it.

However, one additional consideration not brought up yet was the American and British response. Brooke at least was well aware that the British would potentially have to backstop the Caucasus defenses. You could have seen the Torch landings cancelled and the forces to be employed in them diverted to Baku. And that would have major butterflies.

 

[Onkel Willie]

I agree that this was one of the major blunders of the war, and a "make sure you take Stalingrad (and Astrakhan first and deal with the Caucasus later" would have been a major improvement on the German strategy, and really hurt the Soviets without there being much they could do to counter it.

However, one additional consideration not brought up yet was the American and British response. Brooke at least was well aware that the British would potentially have to backstop the Caucasus defenses. You could have seen the Torch landings cancelled and the forces to be employed in them diverted to Baku. And that would have major butterflies.

Would Stalin allow the Anglo-Americans to operate on Soviet soil? Somehow I doubt that. And doing so without Soviet permission would be detrimental to relations with the Soviets to say the least.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I'll begin with a minor observation that the subsequent pauses imposed upon 6th Army did create room for the Soviets to commit their own mistakes that might have fatally weakened the defense of the Stalingrad axis, like the fiasco around the bend of the river Don when the Soviets over-committed to defending the western bank under the impression that the Germans were running out of steam.

That being said, I haven't really seen enough evidence to necessarily convince me that not diverting the 4th does not seem to improve the odds so operating on the assumption that Stalingrad falls we probably do see a somewhat deeper advance into the Caucasus. Grozny potentially falls, although the Soviets will blow it sky high like they did Maikop. But forcing the mountains and making it too Baku? Outside of German capabilities by themselves. One needs something like the fall of Stalingrad triggering a Soviet collapse or something like that for that to happen.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'll begin with a minor observation that the subsequent pauses imposed upon 6th Army did create room for the Soviets to commit their own mistakes that might have fatally weakened the defense of the Stalingrad axis, like the fiasco around the bend of the river Don when the Soviets over-committed to defending the western bank under the impression that the Germans were running out of steam.

That being said, I haven't really seen enough evidence to necessarily convince me that not diverting the 4th does not seem to improve the odds so operating on the assumption that Stalingrad falls we probably do see a somewhat deeper advance into the Caucasus. Grozny potentially falls, although the Soviets will blow it sky high like they did Maikop. But forcing the mountains and making it too Baku? Outside of German capabilities by themselves. One needs something like the fall of Stalingrad triggering a Soviet collapse or something like that for that to happen.

So what do you think is Stalin's reaction to the loss of Stalingrad with a minimal fight in late July? Does Operation Uranus still happen or does Stalin burn up his forces in Summer/Autumn counterattack?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

So what do you think is Stalin's reaction to the loss of Stalingrad with a minimal fight in late July? Does Operation Uranus still happen or does Stalin burn up his forces in Summer/Autumn counterattack?

As it was, Stalin did do some pre-mature and fruitless counter-attacks to try and relieve pressure on Stalingrad OTL... although there is some evidence they might have managed to achieve part of their mission in that they may have forced 6th Army to slacken their assault on the city. What's most likely, in my opinion, is there is an initial counter-attack that bloodily fails like OTL, then Zhukov and Vasilevsky manage to talk him into a Uranus-esque operation. The possibility that he does burn out his forces is there though. And possibly even more or less extreme reactions.

I say "Uranus-esque" because the problem is that, with Stalingrad fallen, simply Uranus as it was practiced OTL simply can't really work out. Without the overcommitment to the city a direct assault would necessitate, the 6th would be in a position to actually be able to react to a threat to it's flanks... unless Hitler does something stupid like strip out the bulk of it's panzers to try and reinforce the Caucasus drive. I wouldn't put it past Hitler to do something like that. But if he doesn't, the Soviets are going to have to settle for doing something that would merely force the Germans to withdraw out of the Caucasus, like a direct assault on the Italian part of the front to drive on Rostov.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

As it was, Stalin did do some pre-mature and fruitless counter-attacks to try and relieve pressure on Stalingrad OTL... although there is some evidence they might have managed to achieve part of their mission in that they may have forced 6th Army to slacken their assault on the city. What's most likely, in my opinion, is there is an initial counter-attack that bloodily fails like OTL, then Zhukov and Vasilevsky manage to talk him into a Uranus-esque operation. The possibility that he does burn out his forces is there though. And possibly even more or less extreme reactions.

I say "Uranus-esque" because the problem is that, with Stalingrad fallen, simply Uranus as it was practiced OTL simply can't really work out. Without the overcommitment to the city a direct assault would necessitate, the 6th would be in a position to actually be able to react to a threat to it's flanks... unless Hitler does something stupid like strip out the bulk of it's panzers to try and reinforce the Caucasus drive. I wouldn't put it past Hitler to do something like that. But if he doesn't, the Soviets are going to have to settle for doing something that would merely force the Germans to withdraw out of the Caucasus, like a direct assault on the Italian part of the front to drive on Rostov.

So supposing Stalin is talked off the ledge by Zhukov, what does he do in the meantime while waiting for the Don to freeze to enable a major offensive over it at the Italians/Hungarians? There would probably have to be some constant pressure around Stalingrad to appear to be doing something and lock down German mobile forces from conducting offensive action, but there has to be something more like an attack on Voronezh.
Additionally when a Little Saturn-like offensive against the Italians/Hungarians happens, probably in conjunction with Mars and pinning assaults on the German 2nd army as per OTL, what then happens with the German retreat from the Caucasus and Stalingrad...minus the destruction of major German forces, just perhaps their Axis allies? Having 6th army, plus no major losses of equipment, nor the damage to the Luftwaffe trying to supply a pocket at Stalingrad would mean the German army is far stronger in the Winter of early 1943 and then for Summer, how do you see that influencing events?

 

[Onkel Willie]

So supposing Stalin is talked off the ledge by Zhukov, what does he do in the meantime while waiting for the Don to freeze to enable a major offensive over it at the Italians/Hungarians? There would probably have to be some constant pressure around Stalingrad to appear to be doing something and lock down German mobile forces from conducting offensive action, but there has to be something more like an attack on Voronezh.
Additionally when a Little Saturn-like offensive against the Italians/Hungarians happens, probably in conjunction with Mars and pinning assaults on the German 2nd army as per OTL, what then happens with the German retreat from the Caucasus and Stalingrad...minus the destruction of major German forces, just perhaps their Axis allies? Having 6th army, plus no major losses of equipment, nor the damage to the Luftwaffe trying to supply a pocket at Stalingrad would mean the German army is far stronger in the Winter of early 1943 and then for Summer, how do you see that influencing events?

IMHO more interesting is what happens if Stalin does actually waste his forces in vain attempts to recapture Stalingrad ASAP. I'm betting Stalin won't be as influential at the alt-versions of Teheran and Yalta, assuming he doesn't bow out of the war ITTL. That said, less Soviet success doesn't equal greater Western Allied success either. They might very well do worse if Hitler feels he can divert forces from the Eastern Front to face the Anglo-Americans.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

IMHO more interesting is what happens if Stalin does actually waste his forces in vain attempts to recapture Stalingrad ASAP. I'm betting Stalin won't be as influential at the alt-versions of Teheran and Yalta, assuming he doesn't bow out of the war ITTL. That said, less Soviet success doesn't equal greater Western Allied success either. They might very well do worse if Hitler feels he can divert forces from the Eastern Front to face the Anglo-Americans.

Stalin would be more influential, because he is more desperate and would seriously be considering a peace deal if he cannot liberate Kuban and East Ukraine to replant it for the Summer and improve his food situation. Plus of course the panic he'll have about the public turning on his leadership (he was a classic paranoid) or the military or something. Still though I think his forces could budge the Axis on the Don over winter even with heavy losses around Stalingrad.

 

[pattersonautobody]

This is probably the most even handed thread I have seen!

I would have to agree that Stalin's response is important in knowing the PODs. It is unlikely that before winter 42 the Rhzev counteroffensive from the Soviets and a later Nordlicht on the German side are called off. FUrther, I do not think Stalin would be throwing premature counter-attacks against Stalingrad before the winter. Sure, it makes for a good German wank, but the city only took on importance as the street-fighting began which would not occur ITTL.

So, IMHO, Uranus and the other planet-operations against Leningrad and Rhzev go off in November. With AGN not stripped bare to reinforce Stalingrad, any counter-attack against Leningrad fails and the city falls/stays in German hands. The Germans hold at Rhzev. The case down south is more interesting.

Without Hitler's meddling, Army Group A goes straight for Tblisi before Autumn and not the black sea ports. The Germans will take the city, and with both the Volga and Tblisi cut off, it becomes difficult logistically for the Soviets to build up a counter attack against the Germans south of Stalingrad. How will they move the men and material for a counteroffensive, especially when what little they move will be for the defense of Grozny and then Baku? Further, the riversides of the Volga were tall cliffs. This makes them very defensible.

More likely, ITTL Uranus is likely a frontal assault against the Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians in the north--a single pincer towards Rostov. Ironically, because the Germans do not have Manstein and extra men committed as IOTL and rather they are near Leningrad, the offensive is likely successful and forces a massive German withdrawal from Stalingrad in horrible winter conditions to prevent being cut off. So, the Germans withdraw from all of their gains other than Kerch, but they withdraw in good order to Rostov. Being a huge frontal assault, the Soviets will lack the ability to exact the casualties to cause a collapse in the south.

So, the Germans enter 1943 with a less desperate man-power situation having experienced no major losses in any sector. Plus, they did not lose tons of equipment in their withdrawal. SOviet losses in Leningrad are severe , but their losses on all other fronts are roughly similar. This puts the USSR in a much better position than one may otherwise think. The Germans are unlikely to withdraw from Rhzev and straighten out their lines, after all, with the fall of Leningrad they can reinforce this sector.

Knowing that Stalin had to be convinced not to attack before Kursk with overwhelming force, ITTL he won't be dissuaded by Zhukov. In May 1943 Stalin will throw a huge amount of men into pinching off AGC. By 1943, the Soviet colossus starts becoming so large, with all of its reserve armies, that the fight in the center will be the nastiest the world have ever seen--worse than Kursk IOTL, but with the Germans on the defensive. Just think of all of those Panthers, Tigers and Elefants being used defensively instead of breaking down on their way to the starting line. The German heavy tanks will be used in a fashion that their massive weights (and lack of machine gun in the Elefant's case) that would be conducive to their success.

Personally, I think the Germans would have to withdraw, even with 500,000 more men committed to the center after Leningrad and huge losses taken on by the Soviets. In all probability, the Germans would be building up again in the south for a blue-redo, and the tyranny of numbers will force Model to withdraw. The losses will be horrific for the Russians and I do think that the Germans avoid a mass encirclement--this won't be a Bagration 43.

At this point, the Manstein has to be shut down as he will still wants to attack in the south, even as the German situation in the middle is crumbling and the Wallies are landing in Italy. So, the Germans have no major attacks in 1943, though there might be a backhand blow as the Russians probably throw a local attack towards Kharkov which I still think gets cut off ITTL.

By the end of 43, Stalin shot his bolt. He does not have Ukraine and though he regained territory in the center, with the loss of Leningrad and without recapturing Ukraine he has a huge manpower and food drain ITTL. Stalin cannot feed and man the armies to the same extent ITTL, so the Russian army in 1944 won't be a juggernaut that can take the fight to Germany. Stalin will sit, content that the Germans are too overstretched building up in France and Italy to pull off any major operations. After the invasion of France, a smaller Bagration-like operation will occur, perhaps an attack against Ukraine as well. Ukraine ITTL will be interesting, as the Germans would have conscripted a fair amount of Ukrainians to both serve in France and fight in Ukraine. As for the Baltic states and Finland, they can very well hold out until the end of the war, as I see resurgent Russia more concerend with Ukraine and getting to Poland. I doubt they would attack the Balts and Finland, as man-for-man they will be much more defensible. The war ends with the Wallies at Berlin, but the German collapse in the east will be very real as the Germans are forced to strip the front bare to fight the wallies. Wallied casualties will be horrific, as they will get their own taste of eastern0front style fighting.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Without Hitler's meddling, Army Group A goes straight for Tblisi before Autumn and not the black sea ports. The Germans will take the city, and with both the Volga and Tblisi cut off, it becomes difficult logistically for the Soviets to build up a counter attack against the Germans south of Stalingrad. How will they move the men and material for a counteroffensive, especially when what little they move will be for the defense of Grozny and then Baku? Further, the riversides of the Volga were tall cliffs. This makes them very defensible.

Tiblisi? Are you sure you didn't mean Astrakhan or Baku? In both cases there was still the supplies coming in from Iran to support the Soviets in the Caucasus.

As to Rzhev...that is possible for 1943 and would be a combo of Smolensk 1943 and Orel 1943. If Leningrad falls...there will still be Operation Spark and it might intervene during Nordlicht and stop the fall of Leningrad. I doubt the Germans could afford to strip much off the Leningrad sector even if the city fell because of how powerful Soviet forces were getting in the area and would have reserves without a sustained operation in the south to try and make a go of liberating the city. Still if it fell the Finns could then launch the planned Murmansk RR attack and cut it off. Regardless 1943 will be a bloodbath all around.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/countrpt/countrpt.htm

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

pattersonautobody's post was interesting. He raised some questions about things that would have been affected by a smaller or less successful Uranus/ Saturn.

If the Leningrad operation goes off after all, how were the Germans planning to deal with the remaining civilians in the city? That is what stopped them from just taking the city earlier. I probably don't really want to know the answer to this.

Does taking Leningrad really help the German position all that much, and were they serious about really trying to take Leningrad? IOTL, they both had the city sealed off, and they didn't really commit that much to that sector. Army Group North consisted of just two infantry armies. They always drew off a disproportionate amount of Soviet strength, even after being penned up in Kurland. I don't think that particular sector was where the Germans lost the war.

What happens to the German command structure? IOTL, it was a mess in the southern sector between the time of Bock's departure and things stabilized post-Kharkov with Manstein and Kleist working in tandem. Is the POD here that Army Group South is not split? Do List and Weichs remain in place? Is Manstein even given an army group, and if so where? Does Halder leave OkH as IOTL, and if so is Zietzler his replacement? Maybe in IITL Hitler has more confidence in his generals and is willing to have someone of higher stature as his chief of staff of the army. Its actually pretty easy to improve on the German high command arrangements during the Zietzler period at OkH (Guderian actually improved things for them a bit).

 

[m0585]

If presume that the Fourth Panzer not being diverted allows the Germans to take Stalingrad "on the march", which could result in no there being no Battle of Stalingrad then that would be huge.

In OTL the Germans/their allies lost the following in the battle:

-850,000 total casualties (wounded, killed, captured)

-900 aircraft (including 274 transports and 165 bombers used as transports)

-500 tanks, and 6,000 artillery pieces

Not losing those personnel/that material is going to result in a lot of butterflies as it will be available for future operations.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

pattersonautobody's post was interesting. He raised some questions about things that would have been affected by a smaller or less successful Uranus/ Saturn.

If the Leningrad operation goes off after all, how were the Germans planning to deal with the remaining civilians in the city? That is what stopped them from just taking the city earlier. I probably don't really want to know the answer to this.

Does taking Leningrad really help the German position all that much, and were they serious about really trying to take Leningrad? IOTL, they both had the city sealed off, and they didn't really commit that much to that sector. Army Group North consisted of just two infantry armies. They always drew off a disproportionate amount of Soviet strength, even after being penned up in Kurland. I don't think that particular sector was where the Germans lost the war.

What happens to the German command structure? IOTL, it was a mess in the southern sector between the time of Bock's departure and things stabilized post-Kharkov with Manstein and Kleist working in tandem. Is the POD here that Army Group South is not split? Do List and Weichs remain in place? Is Manstein even given an army group, and if so where? Does Halder leave OkH as IOTL, and if so is Zietzler his replacement? Maybe in IITL Hitler has more confidence in his generals and is willing to have someone of higher stature as his chief of staff of the army. Its actually pretty easy to improve on the German high command arrangements during the Zietzler period at OkH (Guderian actually improved things for them a bit).

Most of the civilians had been evacuated from Leningrad by late 1942, but their fate won't be a good one if the Germans take the city. Probably no better than that of the soldiers captured. Civilians weren't the reason for failing to take the city earlier though.

Taking Leningrad is a MASSIVE help; eliminating it, the Soviet Baltic fleet who's subs had been raiding German convoys to Sweden, and at least 1 million Soviets from the enemy roster, plus opening the port of Leningrad in Spring as a supply hub, capturing the airbases of Leningrad, freeing up over 200k Finns for use in Karelia and making it impossible for the Soviets to knock them out of the war until they liberate Leningrad first, and capturing/eliminating several Soviet factories in the city making weapons for the Soviet troops would all be major benefits. Then 18th army could focus all of it's defensive efforts on one area to their east, rather than split it also covering Leningrad and the Oraniumbaum bridgehead to the west. IOTL Hitler was very serious about taking Leningrad, but events in 1942 preventing him from launching the operation as planned and was diverted by Soviet offensives twice just before it happened. There were probably some 8-10 German infantry divisions screening the city and other bridgeheads around it, plus some 200k Finns were screening the city too from the North that could have been used to cut off Murmansk and perhaps take it. Plus over course taking it would eliminate 1 million Soviets from the rolls in late 1942 (mostly combatants by that point). That wasn't the sector where the Germans lost the war necessarily, but it was a vital sector that could cost them the was in an ATL where the other fronts are stagnant.

As to AG-South if they retreat back to one contiguous line like Patterson suggests without major losses, then they become AG-South again, rather than AG-A and B. Not sure if Weichs or List is in charge. Someone will be, perhaps Manstein if he win at Leningrad in time to get a promotion as AG-South is reformed in late 1942/early 1943. Halder was removed in September 1942 for constantly criticizing Hitler and pointing out the massing of Soviet forces on the Don, I see no reason why that would change here. Zeitzler would likely be his replacement as per OTL.

If presume that the Fourth Panzer not being diverted allows the Germans to take Stalingrad "on the march", which could result in no there being no Battle of Stalingrad then that would be huge.

In OTL the Germans/their allies lost the following in the battle:

-850,000 total casualties (wounded, killed, captured)

-900 aircraft (including 274 transports and 165 bombers used as transports)

-500 tanks, and 6,000 artillery pieces

Not losing those personnel/that material is going to result in a lot of butterflies as it will be available for future operations.

Most of those losses IOTL weren't in the fight for the city, it was in the subsequent Soviet attacks against the flank on the Don and encircling 6th Army in Stalingrad. So likely there are still major losses come Winter 1942 when the Soviet attack.