Jump to content


Does Germany win in this WWII scenario?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
137 replies to this topic

PLK180W #121 Posted 20 May 2015 - 02:14 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 61 battles
  • 8,096
  • Member since:
    10-29-2014

View PostRPGStylee, on 17 May 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

 

Jumping the gun here. How exactly does Russia, a much larger country with more manpower and a populace fighting for their survival, get defeated by Germany which is much smaller and has much less manpower, which is also occupying other countries of a similar size to itself?

 

By using the scenario set out by rhe Original Poster.
Through The Mud And Blood To The Green Fields Beyond

Nocturnal814 #122 Posted 20 May 2015 - 02:49 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostPLK180W, on 20 May 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

 

By using the scenario set out by rhe Original Poster.

 

lol, Love the fantasy. ..

something, something, something, dark side...

RPGStylee #123 Posted 20 May 2015 - 02:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostPLK180W, on 20 May 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

 

By using the scenario set out by rhe Original Poster.

 

You mean the scenario where the Russians all drop their pants and bend over just because they lose moscow?


CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


PLK180W #124 Posted 20 May 2015 - 04:07 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 61 battles
  • 8,096
  • Member since:
    10-29-2014

Remember,  under Stalin, Russian command and control was highly centralised on Moscow,  And whilst loosing Moscow may not have caused a Russian surrender,  the effects on Morale and command structures would have been considerable. This could have then been exploited after by the Germans,  add in if the Germans had acted as liberators rather then Occupiers in the Western USSR, a lot of the population there had no love for the Communist Regime, a fair few volunteered early on to fight with the Germans,  it was the Germans actions in the East that turned the population against them and inspired the atmosphere of revenge. 

 


Through The Mud And Blood To The Green Fields Beyond

Matthew J35U5 #125 Posted 21 May 2015 - 03:44 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostR35T 1N PEACE, on 20 May 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

This idea just seems daft to me. Germany had no way of defeating Russia, at all. 

Nah, they just needed to build more Tigers. :B


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


RPGStylee #126 Posted 21 May 2015 - 08:51 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostPLK180W, on 20 May 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

Remember,  under Stalin, Russian command and control was highly centralised on Moscow,  And whilst loosing Moscow may not have caused a Russian surrender,  the effects on Morale and command structures would have been considerable. This could have then been exploited after by the Germans,  add in if the Germans had acted as liberators rather then Occupiers in the Western USSR, a lot of the population there had no love for the Communist Regime, a fair few volunteered early on to fight with the Germans,  it was the Germans actions in the East that turned the population against them and inspired the atmosphere of revenge. 

 

 

If anything the loss of Moscow would boost the vodka fuelled rage of the Russian populace even more, though with Moscow being the hub of the railroad system having it captured might cause problems. The command problem wouldn't last long since I'll assume Stalin hightailed it out of there to some shack in the mountains. The German supplies lines however a far over stretched; they might be able to reach Moscow, but how are they to take it in the first place when fresh Russian meat keeps going into it from the other side. Russian troops who are closer to their supply base too. 

Nazi germany cannot invade Russia under the guise of liberation. This is because Nazi germany wants to eliminate the inferior races of the world and install the Aryan race as supreme rulers, with other peoples as second class citizens(or in the case of the Russians as cattle). German troops could be welcomed as liberators, but Nazi german troops simply can't.


CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


RPGStylee #127 Posted 21 May 2015 - 12:15 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostUnsoundDineen, on 04 May 2015 - 12:42 AM, said:

 

and with Obama taking your guns away, you will be a police state like us in the U.K lol

 

Dont need guns I'll just shank you blud.

CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


UnsoundDineen #128 Posted 21 May 2015 - 12:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10166 battles
  • 9,209
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostRPGStylee, on 21 May 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

 

Dont need guns I'll just shank you blud.

 

unlikely

 

 


RPGStylee #129 Posted 21 May 2015 - 12:34 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostUnsoundDineen, on 21 May 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

 

unlikely

 

Yeah you're right. I'd kill you with my tea cup.

CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


Panzerwerfer42 #130 Posted 23 May 2015 - 03:11 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11593 battles
  • 1,459
  • Member since:
    12-29-2014

View PostRPGStylee, on 21 May 2015 - 08:51 AM, said:

 

If anything the loss of Moscow would boost the vodka fuelled rage of the Russian populace even more, though with Moscow being the hub of the railroad system having it captured might cause problems. The command problem wouldn't last long since I'll assume Stalin hightailed it out of there to some shack in the mountains. The German supplies lines however a far over stretched; they might be able to reach Moscow, but how are they to take it in the first place when fresh Russian meat keeps going into it from the other side. Russian troops who are closer to their supply base too.

Nazi germany cannot invade Russia under the guise of liberation. This is because Nazi germany wants to eliminate the inferior races of the world and install the Aryan race as supreme rulers, with other peoples as second class citizens(or in the case of the Russians as cattle). German troops could be welcomed as liberators, but Nazi german troops simply can't.

 

Many of the Russians welcomed the Germans as liberators (saving them from the Czar - believe it or not), had they not proceeded to murder and burn homes, many rural areas(as late as the 1950's) would have supported Germany in it's efforts.  Please read the book Panzer Commander by Hans von Luck.

 

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 02 May 2015 - 02:05 AM, said:

No. V2 is a propaganda piece nothing more. Literally killed more people making it than with it. It is also only likely that Germany would develop an atom bomb if you are ignorant. Germany was not close to an atom bomb. This was not a race that was narrowly won. This was America casually crushing Germany with its superiority. 1940's America was the richest most powerful country there was. They were not going to be beaten to a development such as the atom bomb by the likes of Nazi Germany.

There is zero chance. Literally zero. Not only because America's superiority in literally everything would have crushed Germany, and not only because American bombers would be eradicating German cities before German rockets would be able to touch the continental United states, but also because the V2 did not have the payload capacity to carry an atomic bomb. 

Congratulations though, this is the first time I've seen someone foolish enough to agree with Hitler and his buddies that fantasy wonder weapons would aid them more than more tanks, artillery, rifles or trucks.

Pity all you did was leave said link instead of reading it. You should try that more.

 

What American propaganda purple drink have you been guzzling?  German factory production peaked in '44, during the height of American strategic bombing.  So bombers eradicating anything but civilian populations is misleading at best. And frankly you are flaming this thread.  This in no way what so ever is endorsing mass murder.  And if you can not accept that, then don't participate.  If you can't post anything constructive, don't post anything at all.


 

To the person suggesting Rommel would have won it all - wrong.  Rommel was an experienced battalion commander and raw divisional commander at the time of Barbarossa, for whom Hans von Luck was serving under - see book reference in first reply.  As a battalion commander Rommel had not yet earned the experience to command a Corp, Army, or Army Group.


 

EVERYONE who has read this thread should read Hitler's Panzers East by R.H.S. Stolfi.


 

Fact - The invasion of Russia would not have been successful as it was in '41 had Russia not invaded Poland in '39.

Fact - Germany had an opportunity capture Leningrad in Jul/Aug '41, had this happened, divisional reinforcements wouldn't have been drawn away from Army Group Center in a vein effort to encircle the city in Oct '41.

Fact - Moscow was the sneak head of the entire Russian military network, communication and transportation.  There were no major links from Army Groups North, Central, South and Siberia without passing through Moscow.


 

After reading the above mentioned books and my own research of WWII I have come to the following conclusions:

German Army Group Center should never have attacked south in Sept. '41 to encircle the Kiev pocket in the south.  The Russian leadership did not have the mobility, communication and initiative to attack north and cut off Army Group Center, and doing so exposes them to being encircled by Army Group South once the defenses are abandoned.  The Germans exceled at mobile warfare, the Russians at this stage did not.  The ground gained by Army Group Center in '41 to take Kiev would have secured Moscow. The resulting gains from Operation Typhoon would consolidated gains to the Volga River and allowed constructed defenses along shore lines prior to the arrival of Siberian Reinforcements. Over 67% of the industrial capacity of Russia would have been in German hands in Dec '41 and no communication and rail links would have existed between the remaining Army Groups of Russia.


 

It is my opinion the decision to invade Russia was the single greatest military decision made and riskiest by Hitler, but was sabotaged by the reserved decisions of his generals.  At this point in WWII, the only true military blunder Hitler made was the decision to burn London to the ground instead of focusing on the RAF, which was at the brink of collapse.  Had London fell in '40 and Moscow in '41, WWII would have been drastically different.


 

It is therefore my opinion based on these military facts, missed strategic opportunity and interpretations, that Germany should have conquered all of Europe if not won, WWII.  If any one wants to take this as support for mass murder and genocide, then you are wrong, ignorant or both, and I will not get into a mud slinging reply match.  I am open to educated responses, but I encourage you to read the above two books first, and see if your opinion still remains the same after, as it was before.



RPGStylee #131 Posted 23 May 2015 - 09:16 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostPanzerwerfer42, on 23 May 2015 - 03:11 AM, said:

Many of the Russians welcomed the Germans as liberators (saving them from the Czar - believe it or not), had they not proceeded to murder and burn homes, many rural areas(as late as the 1950's) would have supported Germany in it's efforts.  Please read the book Panzer Commander by Hans von Luck.

 

While that is certainly believable, it is not a question of if the Nazi troops commit atrocities, its how long it will take them to do so; which wasn't very long. The only way German troops in WWII don't do such things is if there is no Nazi party running the show in which case the war doesn't happen, or Stalin decides to invade Germany instead.

 


CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


Matthew J35U5 #132 Posted 23 May 2015 - 12:18 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostPanzerwerfer42, on 22 May 2015 - 10:11 PM, said:

Many of the Russians welcomed the Germans as liberators (saving them from the Czar - believe it or not), had they not proceeded to murder and burn homes, many rural areas(as late as the 1950's) would have supported Germany in it's efforts.  Please read the book Panzer Commander by Hans von Luck.

 

 

What American propaganda purple drink have you been guzzling?  German factory production peaked in '44, during the height of American strategic bombing.  So bombers eradicating anything but civilian populations is misleading at best. And frankly you are flaming this thread.  This in no way what so ever is endorsing mass murder.  And if you can not accept that, then don't participate.  If you can't post anything constructive, don't post anything at all.


 

To the person suggesting Rommel would have won it all - wrong.  Rommel was an experienced battalion commander and raw divisional commander at the time of Barbarossa, for whom Hans von Luck was serving under - see book reference in first reply.  As a battalion commander Rommel had not yet earned the experience to command a Corp, Army, or Army Group.


 

EVERYONE who has read this thread should read Hitler's Panzers East by R.H.S. Stolfi.


 

Fact - The invasion of Russia would not have been successful as it was in '41 had Russia not invaded Poland in '39.

Fact - Germany had an opportunity capture Leningrad in Jul/Aug '41, had this happened, divisional reinforcements wouldn't have been drawn away from Army Group Center in a vein effort to encircle the city in Oct '41.

Fact - Moscow was the sneak head of the entire Russian military network, communication and transportation.  There were no major links from Army Groups North, Central, South and Siberia without passing through Moscow.


 

After reading the above mentioned books and my own research of WWII I have come to the following conclusions:

German Army Group Center should never have attacked south in Sept. '41 to encircle the Kiev pocket in the south.  The Russian leadership did not have the mobility, communication and initiative to attack north and cut off Army Group Center, and doing so exposes them to being encircled by Army Group South once the defenses are abandoned.  The Germans exceled at mobile warfare, the Russians at this stage did not.  The ground gained by Army Group Center in '41 to take Kiev would have secured Moscow. The resulting gains from Operation Typhoon would consolidated gains to the Volga River and allowed constructed defenses along shore lines prior to the arrival of Siberian Reinforcements. Over 67% of the industrial capacity of Russia would have been in German hands in Dec '41 and no communication and rail links would have existed between the remaining Army Groups of Russia.


 

It is my opinion the decision to invade Russia was the single greatest military decision made and riskiest by Hitler, but was sabotaged by the reserved decisions of his generals.  At this point in WWII, the only true military blunder Hitler made was the decision to burn London to the ground instead of focusing on the RAF, which was at the brink of collapse.  Had London fell in '40 and Moscow in '41, WWII would have been drastically different.


 

It is therefore my opinion based on these military facts, missed strategic opportunity and interpretations, that Germany should have conquered all of Europe if not won, WWII.  If any one wants to take this as support for mass murder and genocide, then you are wrong, ignorant or both, and I will not get into a mud slinging reply match.  I am open to educated responses, but I encourage you to read the above two books first, and see if your opinion still remains the same after, as it was before.

Not undertaking the Kiev southward turn has two issues, and 1 potential issue. 
1. What would prevent the Red army from withdrawing a large portion of the forces surrounding Kiev via rail to defend Moscow?
2. The actual timeline of events during Barbarossa goes thusly: Several Soviet reserve armies are defending against Army group centre.
Army group centre pauses to encircle Kiev. 
The armies defending against Army group centre launch an attack against Army group centre, and suffers severe losses. 

If one does not turn south to encircle Kiev, the Germans will be attacking into full strength Soviet armies in their prepared defensive positions rather than vice versa, and any gains made will take much longer than what happened in actuality. Anyway, when Moscow is finally reached, it will be necessary to contend with even more mobilized armies, and to do so with a much longer front to defend. The fundamental problem is that the Germans have very optimistic estimates of their enemy's strength, repeatedly throughout Barbarossa, the Germans expect that they have finally defeated the Red Army, only to be faced with another series of armies to face. David Glantz writes that by the time of Taifun (beginning in August rather than later), the Wehrmacht has the equivalent of 83 full-strength divisions, they expect that the Red Army still has the equivalent of 200 divisions remaining, while they actually have the equivalent of 300. 

As for the potential problem, though you dismissed it, it is rather problematic to leave a force of 600,000 men on your flank, while extending the length of your front, and decreasing the density of defending forces. It seems too much to just dismiss it as being able to cause any potential issues. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Niles Y93 #133 Posted 24 May 2015 - 10:20 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10040 battles
  • 801
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostPanzerwerfer42, on 22 May 2015 - 10:11 PM, said:

Many of the Russians welcomed the Germans as liberators (saving them from the Czar - believe it or not), had they not proceeded to murder and burn homes, many rural areas(as late as the 1950's) would have supported Germany in it's efforts.  Please read the book Panzer Commander by Hans von Luck.

 

 

What American propaganda purple drink have you been guzzling?  German factory production peaked in '44, during the height of American strategic bombing.  So bombers eradicating anything but civilian populations is misleading at best. And frankly you are flaming this thread.  This in no way what so ever is endorsing mass murder.  And if you can not accept that, then don't participate.  If you can't post anything constructive, don't post anything at all.


 

To the person suggesting Rommel would have won it all - wrong.  Rommel was an experienced battalion commander and raw divisional commander at the time of Barbarossa, for whom Hans von Luck was serving under - see book reference in first reply.  As a battalion commander Rommel had not yet earned the experience to command a Corp, Army, or Army Group.


 

EVERYONE who has read this thread should read Hitler's Panzers East by R.H.S. Stolfi.


 

Fact - The invasion of Russia would not have been successful as it was in '41 had Russia not invaded Poland in '39.

Fact - Germany had an opportunity capture Leningrad in Jul/Aug '41, had this happened, divisional reinforcements wouldn't have been drawn away from Army Group Center in a vein effort to encircle the city in Oct '41.

Fact - Moscow was the sneak head of the entire Russian military network, communication and transportation.  There were no major links from Army Groups North, Central, South and Siberia without passing through Moscow.


 

After reading the above mentioned books and my own research of WWII I have come to the following conclusions:

German Army Group Center should never have attacked south in Sept. '41 to encircle the Kiev pocket in the south.  The Russian leadership did not have the mobility, communication and initiative to attack north and cut off Army Group Center, and doing so exposes them to being encircled by Army Group South once the defenses are abandoned.  The Germans exceled at mobile warfare, the Russians at this stage did not.  The ground gained by Army Group Center in '41 to take Kiev would have secured Moscow. The resulting gains from Operation Typhoon would consolidated gains to the Volga River and allowed constructed defenses along shore lines prior to the arrival of Siberian Reinforcements. Over 67% of the industrial capacity of Russia would have been in German hands in Dec '41 and no communication and rail links would have existed between the remaining Army Groups of Russia.


 

It is my opinion the decision to invade Russia was the single greatest military decision made and riskiest by Hitler, but was sabotaged by the reserved decisions of his generals.  At this point in WWII, the only true military blunder Hitler made was the decision to burn London to the ground instead of focusing on the RAF, which was at the brink of collapse.  Had London fell in '40 and Moscow in '41, WWII would have been drastically different.


 

It is therefore my opinion based on these military facts, missed strategic opportunity and interpretations, that Germany should have conquered all of Europe if not won, WWII.  If any one wants to take this as support for mass murder and genocide, then you are wrong, ignorant or both, and I will not get into a mud slinging reply match.  I am open to educated responses, but I encourage you to read the above two books first, and see if your opinion still remains the same after, as it was before.

 

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 23 May 2015 - 07:18 AM, said:

Not undertaking the Kiev southward turn has two issues, and 1 potential issue. 
1. What would prevent the Red army from withdrawing a large portion of the forces surrounding Kiev via rail to defend Moscow?
2. The actual timeline of events during Barbarossa goes thusly: Several Soviet reserve armies are defending against Army group centre.
Army group centre pauses to encircle Kiev. 
The armies defending against Army group centre launch an attack against Army group centre, and suffers severe losses. 

If one does not turn south to encircle Kiev, the Germans will be attacking into full strength Soviet armies in their prepared defensive positions rather than vice versa, and any gains made will take much longer than what happened in actuality. Anyway, when Moscow is finally reached, it will be necessary to contend with even more mobilized armies, and to do so with a much longer front to defend. The fundamental problem is that the Germans have very optimistic estimates of their enemy's strength, repeatedly throughout Barbarossa, the Germans expect that they have finally defeated the Red Army, only to be faced with another series of armies to face. David Glantz writes that by the time of Taifun (beginning in August rather than later), the Wehrmacht has the equivalent of 83 full-strength divisions, they expect that the Red Army still has the equivalent of 200 divisions remaining, while they actually have the equivalent of 300. 

As for the potential problem, though you dismissed it, it is rather problematic to leave a force of 600,000 men on your flank, while extending the length of your front, and decreasing the density of defending forces. It seems too much to just dismiss it as being able to cause any potential issues. 

 

To both, I refer you to Chapter 5, Question B: "What if the German 1942 summer offensive had been focused on Moscow?" on Page 75 in "If The Allies Had Fallen".



Panzerwerfer42 #134 Posted 24 May 2015 - 04:21 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11593 battles
  • 1,459
  • Member since:
    12-29-2014

View PostNiles Y93, on 24 May 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

 

 

To both, I refer you to Chapter 5, Question B: "What if the German 1942 summer offensive had been focused on Moscow?" on Page 75 in "If The Allies Had Fallen".

 

I will have to read that.  I was will say without having read it.  The capture of Moscow in and of itself means nothing.  It the ability to take it, reach past it and occupy the majority of the Russian population and industrial capacity that laid west of the Volga is what makes Moscow important.  Did the same potential exist for the Germans in '42 as it did in '41? And even if the attack was successful '42, the industrial capacity that was moved east was in full production by '42 and churning out tanks, planes and artillery for a '43 counter offensive.

NSW Mntd Rifles #135 Posted 06 July 2015 - 06:39 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 39954 battles
  • 599
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View Postx Der Meister x, on 01 May 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

Edit- I don't condone or support genocide. This is merely an example of a scenario that "may" have happened, made accurate for historical sake and discussion.

 

Lets say Germany takes Moscow in 1941 and defeats the USSR. How? In this alternate universe, Germany and Japan ACTUALLY employ a common strategy.

 

Pre-Barbarossa, Hitler contacts the Japanese high command to let them in on the invasion. He promises German and Italian Naval aid against the U.S after the USSR's collapse. Also, he pledges resources from the newly conquered territories such as oil and wheat. They are also promised a good portion of Eastern Russia, all in return for their assistance.

 

So while Operation Barbarossa is wrecking the USSR's Western territories, Japan launches a Pearl Harbor type strike on Vladivostok. While also deploying the majority of their troops to the Russian border (some 1 million+ soldiers), keeping Soviet forces in the region in check. They don't invade however, because as shown a few years prior, they don't match up well with Soviet forces. This is merely a diversionary tactic that leaves the USSR paralyzed and unable to reinforce Moscow as they did IRL. 

 

With the Germans steam rolling through the Western half of the USSR, and with  the Japanese poised to invade the Eastern half, Soviet moral is shattered, as is their armed forces. With the war seemingly lost, Stalin flees into hiding in the Ural Mountains (in this scenario Stalin does not recover from his breakdown. After Germany invades, he is never seen in public again). The Soviet Regime is overthrown as the Germans enter Moscow as liberators. A new Russian regime is formed and instantly agrees to whatever terms Hitler throws at them. (Hitler realizes that occupation of the entire Russian nation is impossible. Especially as War with England is still raging).

 

The new Russian regime concedes all former European Soviet territories and the Caucasus oil fields to Hitler in exchange for peace and Russian sovereignty. While they retain their independence, the terms of surrender also demand they send troops to fight for the Reich.

 

The Communist Party is also outlawed, with the SS granted permission to roam the country in search of Communist party members, NKVD agents, and any other collaborators. And above all, Stalin himself. To ensure that the USSR never rises again and that Communism is destroyed as Hitler planned all along. 

 

So what do you think? With war in the East effectively over, Russian manpower now in their back pocket, and with Germany and Japan effectively strategizing together. Can Germany win out in this scenario going forward? 

 

Anyone contemplating the military effect of the capture of Moscow should read Clausewitz On War. Reflecting on the Napoleonic invasion of Russia Clausewitz mad the point that it is foolish to focus on a geographical objective. Victory can really only be obtained in any war by eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war i.e. destroy their army and armaments capacity. The Russians have always understood this and used geography as a the principal weapon against the invader, regardless of who they were. The USA should have used this lesson when planning its invasion of Iraq in 2003. Cities and points on maps become seductive goals for those who forget the lessons of history. The Nazis could have captured Moscow but there were thousands of kilometres, hundreds of factories and millions of people beyond there to continue the fight.

Matthew J35U5 #136 Posted 06 July 2015 - 12:04 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostJose the Padre, on 06 July 2015 - 01:39 AM, said:

 

Anyone contemplating the military effect of the capture of Moscow should read Clausewitz On War. Reflecting on the Napoleonic invasion of Russia Clausewitz mad the point that it is foolish to focus on a geographical objective. Victory can really only be obtained in any war by eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war i.e. destroy their army and armaments capacity. The Russians have always understood this and used geography as a the principal weapon against the invader, regardless of who they were. The USA should have used this lesson when planning its invasion of Iraq in 2003. Cities and points on maps become seductive goals for those who forget the lessons of history. The Nazis could have captured Moscow but there were thousands of kilometres, hundreds of factories and millions of people beyond there to continue the fight.

Funny, that's what Hitler said. 

Like literally what he said. His "professional generals" were all like, "Herp-a-derp, we-gonna capture moscow and leningrad, then we-gonna beat dem russies". Cue face palm from Hitler, "No you fools, we need to destroy the Red Army and the Soviet Union's industrial ability".

And yet the conventional history goes that Hitler should have left the war to his generals. Sure...


Yeah, I said it, Hitler was right. (About what goals the Wehrmacht should have in their invasion of the USSR)


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Nocturnal814 #137 Posted 06 July 2015 - 12:27 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 06 July 2015 - 04:04 AM, said:

Funny, that's what Hitler said. 

Like literally what he said. His "professional generals" were all like, "Herp-a-derp, we-gonna capture moscow and leningrad, then we-gonna beat dem russies". Cue face palm from Hitler, "No you fools, we need to destroy the Red Army and the Soviet Union's industrial ability".

And yet the conventional history goes that Hitler should have left the war to his generals. Sure...


Yeah, I said it, Hitler was right. (About what goals the Wehrmacht should have in their invasion of the USSR)

 

and then went on and made the same mistake during the battle of britain.... apparatus the German high command was a bit slow on the learning curve...

something, something, something, dark side...

MegaB0B0 #138 Posted 06 July 2015 - 02:28 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Seriously, Japan has already tied up at war with china by the time corporal start his ventures in Europe lol

japanese army was badly defeated at the hands of an exiled Zhukov where the Japanese force allow the future marshal to test his theories of tank centric formation with light tanks. 

Japan with its heavy industry concentrated to produce the worlds third largest navy at the time, there is no chance for them to made tanks that can withstand even a few T-34, hence it is not possible for Japanese force to be in an invasive stand against the Russians. The best hope was to make a trench stalemate sort of war where Japanese dug in with deep defence anti tank gun placements, but this meant pulling the resource they need to secure the Chinese ports and rail lines as well as battle with nationalist Chinese forces. 

One reason Japanese invaded china in full scale was because if they don't, the Chinese nationalist would get a whole production line shipped to them by Germany to produce panzer 3 tanks in mass, to form the first panzer division outside of Germany, as well as have a few German armed infrantry divisions , Japanese would have no hope in getting the gains they managed in china if such plan materialised by 1940.

again, the same goes for Germany invading ussr, if they don't, massive amount of quality t-34 and kv1 kv2 would roll off production with trained troops and better training by the original planed date of the war that was 1943!!! (The date where Germany navy expected to be ready for war!)


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users