>Don’t get me started about how the Brits compare El Alamain to Stalingrad in it’s impact on the war...
The victory at El Alamain was more important than Stalingrad. Lose it and Rommel takes Alexandra and the Suez Canal and the oil fields of the middle east. From there they could take Persia and cut the main US Russian supply line and put there Bombers in range of the oil fields of Baku.
Stalingrad bagged a bunch midtier German troops and allies and a really bad German field general. The losses from Tunisia a few months later were much more harmful to Germany in terms of men, weapons, and moral than was Stalingrad.
Stalingrad gets played up far more than it should because of wartime Russian propaganda.
Stalingrad was more about Hitler believing at the time that the Russians were finished, and not equipping his troops for a longer war.
Also bombing Stalingrad to rubble made it easier for the Russians to defend the city.
The Germans were out of tanks and out of gas by the time they got to El Alamein. It still took Montgomery months to clear them out. German losses in the battle were 1,100 killed, 3,900 wounded and 7,900 prisoners and Italian losses as 1,200 killed, 1,600 wounded and 20,000 prisoners.
Germans lost 400,000 at Stalingrad, Italians 114,000, Romanians 109,000, Hungarians 105,000.
A catastrophe like that isn't propaganda.