Talk:Siege of Sevastopol (1941–1942)

Untitled
Can someone explain how this was a strategic victory for the Russians? They lost Sevastopol and its garrison. They lost the relief force sent to relieve them (Kerch Peninsula). The fall of Sevastopol, then the strongest fortress in the world was a huge military and political blow to the Russians. --Pelladon 02:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC) This is quite clear. For a long time this battle was distracting large number of German troops, while being of secondary value. Sevastopol wasn't "fortress" from the land side. It was well-defended against naval assault, but not well protected from the land army actions. Defenses were largely improvised. Also it's loss, while being very bitter for Russians, wasn't any military or political blow. Holding for 250 days against enemy, while deep behind main front line was a thing to be proud of. It's considered an example of Soviet courage in modern Russia, not a humiliating defeat.

The main success for the Axis was that they freed up several divisions which were otherwise tied down guarding their southern flank. It wasn't a victory for the Russians but the loss didn't have a major impact on their overall strategic situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.244.14 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Schwerer Gustav
The main article on this gun contradicts the account given on this page. It claims that the gun was first used at Sevastopol on 5 June, 1942, not in November 1941 as stated in this article. -- Drogo Underburrow 07:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing is about the name of the gun... The main article claims that Dora was never fired, and the one used was the Schwerer Gustav; while in this article says that Dora was the one fired... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.57.117.242 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian: оборона Севастополя, literally, "defense of Sevastopol"
Please explain why an article in the English Wikipedia should give the Russian name of this battle in the introduction. -- Drogo Underburrow 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Presumably so that we English speakers have an idea what the battle is referred to in Russian? Lisiate 04:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What about Japanese? Or Chinese? What's it called in Swahili? Drogo Underburrow 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the Japanese wikipedia article is entitled セヴァストポリ要塞攻略戦 which Google translates as "セヴァストポリ fortress capture game" - presumably the first characters are a transliteration of Sevastapol. In any event, given that this was a battle in the former Soviet Union its reasonable to give the Russian name of the battle as there are bound to be many Russian histories and studies of the events. Interested readers may wish to be able to find them, and with this information they can. Lisiate 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

German 11th Army
"However, this had been a great waste of time for the Germans: the assault on Stalingrad, Operation "Blau", was just beginning, and the Sixth Army (under Friedrich Paulus) would not have the German 11th Army to support them."

The German 11th Army was diverted to the northern sector of the Russian front by Hitler. This diversion was opposed by Manstien and Hadler. The article gives the impression the German 11th Army was not avaiable to assist in the drive toward Stalingrad due to the battle of Sevastopol. This impression is incorrect. The German 11th Army was avaiable to be used in the southern sector but was diverted by Hitler. The battle of Sevastopol had nothing to do with Operation Blue.

I totally agree, please edit this. Manstein had planned for the 11th Army to cross the straits of Kerch and assist the assault into the Caucasus. The initial success of Operation Blue led to overconfidence by Hitler and the operation was cancelled, but they /were/ ready to help with this operation.

As for attributing the lack of the 11th army to the disaster at Stalingrad, that's patently absurd. The two single most glaring factors for the Stalingrad debacle were: A - Terrible strategic priorities. Stalingrad was meant to anchor the northern flank for the push into the Caucasus, but taking a city-fortress rather than using a mobile defensive curtain squandered all the natural strengths of the German army. B - A refusal to withdraw. When the situation at Stalingrad had become obviously precarious Hitler refused to withdraw the 6th army and then once they were encircled he refused to allow them to fight their way out. Either option would have saved the 6th army and resulted in minimal losses.

In both cases the presence or lack thereof of the 11th army makes absolutely zero difference. 82.43.138.69 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, someone with the time should amend the "Aftermath" section it seems off. Mentioning the fate of the crimean divisions to be parcelled off to other fronts and the proposed idea to cross the straits both would be worth mentioning to help site the victory in the context of other events.77.100.244.14 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

More detail in Manstien Article
Oddly there seems to be a more detailed description of the battle on von Manstien's page: [] perhaps someone would like to try and incorporate some of it (it might need some clean-up as well). I think some campaign maps of the area would also be helpful. Tomgreeny 13:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Trimmed the von Manstein article considerably and moved the material here. Abel29a 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The numbers of forces and losses in the infobox
Can't get the numbers to add up. Looks like the numbers listed (forces avaiable and causalties) are for the whole campaign for the Germans and only the actual last assault on Sevastopol for the Russians. Is this a correct interpretation? If one look at the whole campaign the Russian numbers should be much higher - 200,000 initially in the Crimea, the landing at Kerch with 150,000 troops in all. At least 250,000 captured all told. Anywho - I don't know squat about this battle, but hopefully somebody more in the know can fix the numbers. Abel29a 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a point. The numbers in this article doesn't match up at all. The last estimate of 90.000 captured and 11.000 killed seems strange, when it states, that 25.000 were evacuated (making it 126.000 total) when their strength is set at 106.000. Where did those 20.000 people come from? And the figure of 24.000 casualties on the german side dosen't sound too far off. The fact-box stating 100.000 casualties seems awfully high (if we're talking taking Sevastopol only) as it would count as many divisions entirely wiped out. And the german strength of 350.000 - where does that number come from? That's something like 30 divisions or 2-3 entire armies. The 11th army had 9 or ten divisions at it's disposal. None of these held 30000+ men.--Nwinther 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are going to say Russians the only count Russians and not all soviets, and by the way you are writeing this from a German point of view, if the Soviets win then it is because either the weather or because the German units used where never ment to be used that way, if the Germans win it is because of German supperiority. All your edits are very very very pro german and written froma German point of view useing only German numbers where as all Soviet numbers are wrong because they are soviet. 83.249.125.119 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then add more on the Soviet side of things, dont just delete it all - and what do you mean by "froma German point of view useing only German numbers where as all Soviet numbers are wrong because they are soviet."? Most places in the article both sides numbers are listed, and no statement is made to the effect that the Soviet numbers are less true AFAIK. Abel29a 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole text is from Mansteins memories 25 years ago! That was before the collapse of the Union so he had no clue how many the Soviets lost. Everything is wrong and is extremely biased, first the Soviet average division was between 6300 men - 7800 the average German was 10000 - 15000, yet the text writes poor poor manstein only had 5 divisions while the Bolshevik hordes had 7, this is a deliberate tactic used by many Nazi writers to give the illusion that the Bolshevik drunken hordes only won because the Nazis could not keep up bullet production with the same rate as the hordes could throw in there subhuman men in it, also in 1944 the Nazis them selves concluded that they had exaggerated kill rates by 50%. The whole text is written from a German perspective, every time the Soviets win it is downplayed and blamed on something but as soon as the Germans win then it is boasted high and loud, the whole text is nothing but a German propaganda statement about how the Germans really won ww2. The whole text is from Mansteins memories 25 years ago! That was before the collapse of the Union so he had no clue how many the Soviets lost. Beingalert 08:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop being silly - if you have a problem with the numbers, change them, dont delete ALL the content because you disagree with some of it. I'm gonna add some more Soviet numbers from the Manstein article, were they apparently are from Soviet sources - but this article is not biased the way you describe it. "yet the text writes poor poor manstein only had 5 divisions while the Bolshevik hordes had 7, this is a deliberate tactic used by many Nazi writers to give the illusion that the Bolshevik drunken hordes only won because the Nazis could not keep up bullet production with the same rate as the hordes could throw in there subhuman men in it" This comment alone makes your whole argument dismissable, as its just a ranting anti-German slante over the whole thing.Abel29a 09:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also noticed the numbers cited don't add up. I just thought I'd point out that is glaringly obvious and makes the article seem rather poor. The article actually rationalises at the end, explaining how the casualty figures cited by someone don't add up but then goes on to give further numbers that don't add up as a replacement. How did they start with 106k, get a further 3k, lose 11k to combat, evacuate 25k and have 90k captured? Where did they find the extra men and exactly who was counting each different statistic so carefully during this supposedly intense battle that resulted in far more capturing and evacuation then actual fighting? If someone finds the time please try and find a better source then they're using for these figures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested new name
Is there any opposition to renaming the article Siege of Sevastopol (1941-1942)?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

chemical/gas weapons?
I have read allegations that this was a battle where the Germans (may have) used chemical weapons. Mostly online and not from any sources particularly to be trusted though often claiming to cite various historians and authors (i could not find any conveniently myself, ie at the library). Is there any support for this claim? -- Jieagles (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Germans used gas in Crimea to fight against partisans in catacombs. However, that was not in Sevastopol. Maybe that was an origin of the allegations you read?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the last days of defence, many vehicles, concentrated at the end of peninsula were set on fire by German artillery and aviation strikes. Defenders had to use their anti-gas masks and some of them thought that chemical weapons where used. That might be another source of information. Besides, as it was mentioned, Germans used chemical weapons against partisans and civilians hiding in catacombs around Kerch. --Sovitalii (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Decisive" Victory?
The most recent version describes the outcome of the siege as a "Decisive Axis victory, Total Soviet Defeat." I find this questionable, considering, as the article says, "the German 6th Army under Paulus would be without crucial support that ultimately contributed to its defeat." Wouldn't that be considered a strategic Soviet victory due to the diversion of critical forces? Also, any long-term gains of the operation would be negated by the eventual German retreat from the area following Soviet counteroffensives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just reverted it. It's totally absurd. Lutie (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

German bias of the article
Article shows a complete lack of Soviet sources. It becomes especially evident in the last sections, which have to be rewritten completely. For example, the tragical circumstances of the Soviet defence in the last days are ommited (tens of thousands of people resisting, concentrated on 3*5 km of flat rocky peninsula at 40 deg C, with no supplies and almost no ammunition), as well as the tragical faith of emprisoned Soviet troops. Reminder: they were treated with excessive cruelty, even for the Eastern Front. Not just communists, commissars and jewish were killed on-site, but sailors, marines and wounded soldiers (besides light-wounded) as well (and there have been thousands of them). Columns of prisoners where crushed by tanks. Of course situation is complicated by the main Russian sources not being even available in English translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovitalii (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

29th June?
29th of June's entry seems to be missing. It's really the highlight of the battle - Soviet forces are buckling under the relentless assault but the Germans are also at the end of their fighting strength. They lack the capacity to break the Soviet lines and re-deploying would take much too long. Instead 54th corps makes a high-risk midnight crossing of Severnaya bay to strike at the unprepared defences in the north of the city, creating a failure cascade through the Soviet lines and setting up the collapse that happens through the next few days. I really feel without this section the otherwise very comprehensive narrative is lacking a key piece of information.77.100.244.14 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)