Which defeat was worse for the Germans: Stalingrad or Tunisia?

[Cmyers1980]

Which defeat was worse and had a greater negative impact upon the German war effort?

The defeat at Stalingrad due to the encirclement and resulting surrender?

Or the defeat and subsequent capture of the Afrika Korps in May 1943?

Edit: I should have been more specific. By the defeat at Stalingrad I mean from the launch of Operation Uranus in November 1942 leading to the encirclement of German forces until the surrender of the 6th Army in February 1943. All casualties taken by the Germans in the time before that should not be counted.

Same with the surrender of the Afrika Korps in Tunisia in May 1943. The two years of war in North Africa that preceded the surrender shouldn't be included in judging which was worse. The question is which was the worst DEFEAT not the worst campaign or battle overall.

So to rephrase the question it should be

Which was the worst German defeat:

Stalingrad from encirclement to surrender (November 1942 to February 1943, about a four month period)

Or

The final two months of the Tunisian campaign, including the surrender/capture of the Afrika Korps (April 1943 to May 1943, a little less than two months)

 

[wcv215]

Stalingrad obviously. North Africa was a pointless sideshow at best, 230,000 casualties at Tunis. 850,000 at Stalingrad.

There really isn't any comptetition between the two.

 

[Johnrankins]

Stalingrad by a mile. The only reason Tunisia cost Germany so many troops is that Hitler's "military genius" told him to throw many thousands of troops in an already lost campaign in a minor theater.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

I'll vote for Tunisia just to be the odd man out. It wiped out the Afrika Korps, arguably Germany's best troops, and ultimately led to the invasions of Sicily, Italy and southern France. It destroyed Germany's major ally in Europe and defending Italy diverted alot of German troops and aircraft that could have been useful elsewhere.

Stalingrad was a decisive victory but Germany did somewhat recover the situation with 3rd Kharkov. The Germans also did create a new 6th Army that successful defended the Mius River soon after Stalingrad.

 

[TFSmith121]

From the point of view of losses, Stalingrad was

From the point of view of losses (casualties, prisoners of war, equipment, and stores) Stalingrad was probably four times as costly to the Axis as Tunisia.

However, in purely strategic terms (as opposed to the operational/grand tactics level) both were equally important for the Allies (in a positive sense) and negative for the Axis.

Tunis meant the Allies could use the Med as a sea lane of communication with essentially no hindrance, which saved huge amounts of shipping, and thus made possible Allied offensives into Europe in 1943-44, from both the Med and British home waters. It is worth noting that Tunisia was the last "conquest" of the Axis in the West, and the Axis never again engaged in an offensive of strategic importance in the West, after the end of the African campaign.

As heavy the losses of Stalingrad were, the reality is the Axis managed one more role of the dice on the Eastern Front - ZITADELLE - before going over to the defensive in the East.

Best,

 

[AlanJWhite]

Agree Stalingrad but Closer Call than it appears

You correctly quote 850,000 Killed wounded AND captured for Stalingrad but fail to note that this is for all the Axis powers (more than half being non German)

So a fairer comparison is the AXIS (as opposed to German) losses for the WHOLE North African campaign. This totals over 500,000 killed or Captured plus some wounded.

On the material side about the same ARMY material was destroyed or captured at the Don as in Africa (different balance between tanks, guns , trucks and other material though)

However the Axis air forces suffered far more (perhaps 2000 planes at Stalingrad cf 8000 in NA)

and of course there is no comparison for the NAVAL losses (merchant and warship)

Perhaps it is not fair to compare a 2 year + theater of war with a 6 month campaign
but as Mr Smith has pointed out the strategic implications probably also favour NA

 

[AlanJWhite]

and the only reason so many were lost on the Don

Stalingrad by a mile. The only reason Tunisia cost Germany so many troops is that Hitler's "military genius" told him to throw many thousands of troops in an already lost campaign in a minor theater.

was that same Genius who refused a pull back to defensible positions

So that just evens out doesn't it

 

[CalBear]

Stalingrad was, by far, the more confidence destroying defeat. The impact on Heer morale was so severe that it can be argued that it never recovered. The Heer believed that it WOULD defeat the Soviets until Stalingrad. Afterwards it was that they could win, The difference is far more than trivial.

That being said, the losses taken at Stalingrad were, at the least, taken against the main enemy, at a strategic position. North Africa was, at best, a sideshow for the Reich. It was actually worse to fight there than to have let the Italians get their asses kicked. North Africa is where the U.S. Army learned to fight a modern war, where the British managed to rebuild their confidence after reversal upon reversal.

So the question really is whether damaging your morale is worse than providing the enemy the opportunity to improve their morale and blood green troops and particularly green commanders

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Tunisia killed more of the Luftwaffe, Stalingrad more of the Heer and Axis allies.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Stalingrad easily. German ground losses were substantially more severe and air losses roughly as bad. The fact that the Eastern Front was the central conflict while North Africa was a sideshow,actually diminishes the importance of losses in the latter, not enhances it.

The Heer believed that it WOULD defeat the Soviets until Stalingrad. Afterwards it was that they could win, The difference is far more than trivial.

I'm not seeing how the Germans could have won after Stalingrad, unless the Soviets abruptly and inexplicably forgotten everything they had learn prior to it.

 

[Johnrankins]

was that same Genius who refused a pull back to defensible positions

So that just evens out doesn't it

Point taken! Let's say there are reasons Hitler never made it past corporal!

 

[Johnrankins]

I'm not seeing how the Germans could have won after Stalingrad, unless the Soviets abruptly and inexplicably forgotten everything they had learn prior to it.

He was speaking of German beliefs not reality.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'm not seeing how the Germans could have won after Stalingrad, unless the Soviets abruptly and inexplicably forgotten everything they had learn prior to it.

If a meteorite struck the US and cut off all LL to both Britain and the USSR, plus wrecked Canada in the process then that might give the Germans a shot.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Stalingrad. It was a resource black hole the Germans couldn't afford and it was their first major strategic defeat.

 

[Napoléon Caesar Augustus]

Stalingrad. Defeating the USSR was the primary purpose of the war, Stalingrad was the most major defeat they suffered while pursuing that goal. As long as they lose in the East, they could run all over North Africa and they'd still lose.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Stalingrad, not just for the material loss of men and supplies but for the psychological effects on both sides. Zhukov described it as "a tremendous education in victory for our men," once the Wehrmacht's aura of invincibility was punctured the Red Army and the Soviet people realised that they could be driven back. It's interesting to wonder if the Germans had pulled back before the trap was sprung how much longer it would have taken the Red Army to reach Berlin.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Hmm...

Which defeat was worse and had a greater negative impact upon the German war effort?

The defeat at Stalingrad due to the encirclement and resulting surrender?

Or the defeat and subsequent capture of the Afrika Korps in May 1943?

Edit: I should have been more specific. By the defeat at Stalingrad I mean from the launch of Operation Uranus in November 1942 leading to the encirclement of German forces until the surrender of the 6th Army in February 1943. All casualties taken by the Germans in the time before that should not be counted.

Same with the surrender of the Afrika Korps in Tunisia in May 1943. The two years of war in North Africa that preceded the surrender shouldn't be included in judging which was worse. The question is which was the worst DEFEAT not the worst campaign or battle overall.

So to rephrase the question it should be

Which was the worst German defeat:

Stalingrad from encirclement to surrender (November 1942 to February 1943, about a four month period)

Or

The final two months of the Tunisian campaign, including the surrender/capture of the Afrika Korps (April 1943 to May 1943, a little less than two months)

Viewed with no kind of context Stalingrad on the numbers of Germans lost injured/killed/captured looks more of a downer for Germany than Tunisia.

But Tunisia meant the Allies had the Mediterranean route practically clear again, and could ship a gazillion more tons of cargo/equipment/troops around the world, because of days saved on journey-times. And then when Sicily/Southern Italy followed Tunisia and brought the defection of the Italian Fleet, suddenly, the Allies had a pile more warships freed up (or acquired) to do other important stuff (including to use as escorts to send Stalin ever more goodies to use to help him kill ever more Germans....)

Stalingrad was a horrible loss in terms of men and equipment for the Germans, but Tunisia meant a huge boost to Allied shipping.

Since your question reads to me as being purely about numbers, then I'd have to say that Stalingrad was a 'worse' defeat for Germany, but if viewed in in different frame of reference, I think Tunisia could be considered at least as serious a defeat for Germany as Stalingrad.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Tunisia killed more of the Luftwaffe, Stalingrad more of the Heer and Axis allies.

This is a important point Through 1943 two thirds of the German aircraft & aircrew losses were in the west, principally in the Mediteranean. The US 8th AF, Bomber Command & the likes of Rudel get all the pop history attention, but the critical & largest air campaign of that year was in the Mediterranean. While the Axis started with some distinct advantages in Tunisian & the Med region in general in four months they were shot out of the Tunisian sky. While the Axis & later the Germans alone won some impressive tactical victories they lost the war at every turn in this theatre. Attempts to strike back at the Allies with the German air forces over Sicily & southern Italy were defeated.

 

[jmc247]

Stalingrad had effects far beyond the raw numbers. The effect on morale can't be underestimated. In selling the notion these guys are our inferiors Hitler created an expectations mindset that a German Army couldn't be beaten by them in such a way. Once they were it was a devastating blow to Axis morale in Europe.

 

[Octosteel]

Stalingrad was, by far, the more confidence destroying defeat. The impact on Heer morale was so severe that it can be argued that it never recovered. The Heer believed that it WOULD defeat the Soviets until Stalingrad. Afterwards it was that they could win, The difference is far more than trivial.

That being said, the losses taken at Stalingrad were, at the least, taken against the main enemy, at a strategic position. North Africa was, at best, a sideshow for the Reich. It was actually worse to fight there than to have let the Italians get their asses kicked. North Africa is where the U.S. Army learned to fight a modern war, where the British managed to rebuild their confidence after reversal upon reversal.

So the question really is whether damaging your morale is worse than providing the enemy the opportunity to improve their morale and blood green troops and particularly green commanders

So the Germans should have just stayed out of North Africa and use those extra troops for the Eastern Front?