Was the average lifespan of a soldier deployed within Stalingrad only 24 hours?

score:7

Accepted answer

The question really relates to which group of Soviet soldiers had average life expectancies of 24 hours. But during the battle, there were in fact some such groups,

One example was Rodimtsev's 13th Guards division, which lost all but 300 members out of its original 10,000 men complement (crossing the Volga into Stalingrad on September 13, and recapturing the key ground of Mamayev Kurgan and the center of the city). There were only six survivors from the most embattled battalion of some 1,000 men.

Another was Zholudov's 37th Guards division, which took 75% losses in two days (average life expectancy of 24 hours) and 97% overall defending the Tractor Factory.

This loss ratio did not apply to most other arrivals or to the relief force, so it is not an "average." But it did apply to soldiers placed into the most intense locales and periods of fighting.

Upvote:2

Let us count. Notice, we are talking about mere evaluation, not about strict numbers.

According to wiki, there were about 1,100,000 people from the Russian side at the peak. And 1,100,000 losses - dead, lost, wounded, or sick. If a person is (let alone lives) at battle lines only 24h, then the battle would last for one day. But the battle lasted for 5 months and a half - from the start of the defence in the middle of August 42 and finishing by the 31st January 43. It is 165 times longer. So, the expected length of participation in the battle from the Soviet side was 5 months and a half, not one day.

As for the Axis side (Not "Germans", please, for there were really a great number of Magyars, Romanians and Italians around Stalingrad), it was about 1 million participants and 0.8 million casualties of all sorts. So, their expected length of participation was about 5.5*1/0.8=~7 months.

Of course, the numbers of participants changed rapidly and irregularly, and that could change the number twice or thrice, but this could not change half a year into a day.

Maybe, somebody counted the number of fighters around Pavlov's house or another critical point and for the days of the most mayhem, too. And somebody extrapolated that number for hundreds of square kilometres of the battle. That sounded nice to them.

Upvote:3

Not a direct answer, but I have seen a study showing that the death/shot down rate for Allied fighter pilots in WW2 dropped off dramatically once they survived their first five combat missions. Training was adjusted to try to get them past that danger point.

The reason, I assume, was a combination of better awareness and suppression of deer-in-headlights syndrome - i.e. they adapted to their surroundings, their situational awareness went up and they regained some mental agility and capability to function under extreme threat.

Now, wrt Stalingrad, it is quite possible that the first few days of a newly arrived soldier similarly saw their most vulnerable point in time. Past that, rather than attritioning at that same rate, they could then have been much more likely to survive a week or a month, even if the combat losses remained horrendous and they were unlikely to live 3 months.

So, you'd have valid "average survival is 1 day", but it wouldn't mean that 8 soldiers would last only 3 days as in 8 => 4 on 1st day, 4 => 2 2nd day, 2 => 1 3rd day. You might see 4 deaths/severely wounded on the first day then a much/somewhat lower rate going forward.

Also, militaries typically count in terms of casualties, which are dead, wounded and POW. A soldier receiving a severe enough wound would be evacuated, at least on the pre-Uranus German side (Russians evacuees would have to cross the 1km wide Volga to be taken out) so they'd live, even if their "combat lifespan" was cut short.

More post

Search Posts

Related post