The Plane that won the second world war

[MiloMorai]

33 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

One of the key factors in the many miscalculations the Germans made to launch Barbarossa, is that not only were Russian numbers of everything (including production and replacement rates) underestimated, but the ability/willingness of the Russians to fight was severely underestimated. That last point is the most fatal one for Germany. They were expecting France/Poland on a larger scale. That's not what they got.

Maybe what happened in WW1 also colored the German's expectations of success in the East.

37 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The only way I figure it is launching Barbarossa approximately 3-4 weeks earlier...

There was also a little excursion into the Balkans.

[oc2209]

1 minute ago, MiloMorai said:

Maybe what happened in WW1 also colored the German's expectations of success in the East.

 

Yes, and also the Winter War with Finland. They ignored Russia's decent performance against the Japanese, likely because they thought the Japanese were even more inferior than the Russians; so the lesson was lost on them.

 

The main problem was that Hitler didn't realize he was facing his mirror image in Stalin. One totalitarian versus another. So if Hitler's people were willing to fight to hell and back for him (either for admiration, fear, whatever), and endure unspeakable suffering in the name of the Fatherland, then logically, Stalin's people were equally willing to fight for their propagandized Motherland. That was the part of the equation that would be overlooked when attempting to gauge Russia's commitment to fight.

[cardboard_killer]

8 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

How they manage to keep going for so long, is really the only question I got

 

While anyone can see that Germany could not compete with the coalition arranged against it, the actual operational history of the LW is one of mismanagement (a common Nazi trait) and poor long range planning (which was a common feature of German strategic thinking post Bismark). The LW could have been effective into 1944 if some better strategic decisions were made in 1940-1.

[Eisenfaustus]

1 hour ago, cardboard_killer said:

which was a common feature of German strategic thinking post Bismark

What strategic thinking? ^^

 

Up to date German leaders try to solve strategic problems tactically. The fact that this never worked is seen as incentive to become even better tactically…

[Lusekofte]

11 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

And yet, they almost won.  Maybe.  Would the Soviets have surrendered if Moscow was captured in 41 and Stalin killed or taken prisoner?

Think not. Stalin moving over the Urals. Momentum lost even if all battlegroups went at it together.

If Hitler had went in before. Giving a damn in helping Italy in the Baltics. You might be right. In the end. Weather mud distance/logistics and cold stopped it. Quote from Hitler in a bright moment. We loose if this go on for a year. That was his reserves already in 1940. But they did make a helluva try

Edited July 18, 2021 by LuseKofte

[Eisenfaustus]

5 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Weather mud distance/logistics and cold stopped it.

Used to think the same - but military history visualized convinced me, that it wasn't the weather that stopped the Wehrmachts advance. It was the red army.

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Used to think the same - but military history visualized convinced me, that it wasn't the weather that stopped the Wehrmachts advance. It was the red army.

Yes Red Army stopped the advance to Moscow. But I said even if Hitler had followed the advice of consentrate all forces on Moscow. They would eventually had to stop due to logistikk and weather. But might have taken Moscow 

USSR is simply too big invading with its clima. For anyone

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Used to think the same - but military history visualized convinced me, that it wasn't the weather that stopped the Wehrmachts advance. It was the red army.

 

Well, the nuanced answer is usually the correct one.

 

Weather alone wasn't the greatest contributing factor to German defeat, and not really even the second or third--but it can't be ignored that bad weather harmed Germans more than it harmed Russians.

 

In the case of better winter performance, it was because Russians knew every trick of the trade, while the Germans never really seemed to catch on; but even the rainy seasons and the mud is going to be more harmful to an advancing army that relies on speed as its greatest force multiplier.

 

9 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Think not. Stalin moving over the Urals. Momentum lost even if all battlegroups went at it together.

If Hitler had went in before. Giving a damn in helping Italy in the Baltics. You might be right. In the end. Weather mud distance/logistics and cold stopped it. Quote from Hitler in a bright moment. We loose if this go on for a year. That was his reserves already in 1940. But they did make a helluva try

 

Which is why I think Germany's only chance of 'winning' WWII was to not attack Russia, and put maximum effort into taking the UK down. The UK was always going to serve as America's floating airstrip and D-Day launch point. Russia, by contrast, was not guaranteed to ever cooperate with America (provided Germany doesn't invade Russia).

 

Between the UK's weakest years of '40 to '42, Egypt and the entire Middle East could have been had by Germany. Only by sufficiently weakening Britain's empire by effectively cutting it in half, and wiping out the BEF at Dunkirk, and building more U-boats early on instead of worthless battleships, does Germany stand a chance of totally defeating Britain.

 

However complicated any plan would be to knock Britain out of the war, it would be an easier, less manpower-intensive undertaking than removing Russia from the picture. There is no easy way to take Russia out with good planning and keen foresight. It's just a slog any way you look at it.