Could the Germans have taken ALL of Russia?

Do you think it would have been possible for the Germans to take the whole of Russia on two stipulations?
One is if Hitler had given his armies an extra year off between 1941 and 1942? The second stipulation is what would have happened if the Afrikakorps had been reinforced as readily as the Allies, and subsequently crushed the Allies in Egypt and arrived at the southern Soviet frontier in 1942?
If you do not think this would allow the Germans to defeat the Soviet Union, what would?

 

Sweet Zombie Jesus, not again.

 

No.

1) all reinforcements to North Africa will get decimated (quite literally) by British air & naval forces (as historically happened). This is a good way to lose men & material for little gain.

2) Russia is just too darn big to be conquered by the Wehrmacht. How often does this need saying?

3) If Hitler waited until 1942 Stalin would have attacked in 1941, causing slight problems if large numbers of German troops were currently sinking to the bottom of the Med in an effort to reinforce Rommel.

 

i agree that russia can't be taken by the wehrmacht but reinforments to Rommel would all be sended to the bottom. i disagree.

until 1942, the allies weren't able of doing that. it was only when they cracked the italian codes that they knew when and where a convoy would be. give rommel his troops in 1941, hell, he just crushes the britisch in no time at all

 

oh yes german troops were normaly just beaten in large scale operations when they were outnumbered or outbombed

 

You mean like Kursk or Stalingrad? Or at Berlin? Or Normandy? Or...

 

what do you mean? they were outnumberd at stalingrad and outnumbered and outbombed in Normandy or do you think i dont know about ww2
i didnet wrote that the german army was invicible but if you wanted to win you have to outnumber them

 

In the Ardennes they were only outnumbered locally, but they lost. On the other hand, in Russia in 1941 they were outnumbered but still won. Victories have different causes than just the number of men involved.

 

A victory is a combination of outnumbering your enemy, outsmarting them, and being just plain lucky. Without one of these three aspects, it is hard to be victorious, especially in a war. Without two, it is incredibly hard. Without any, if you attack someone, you are either arrogant or incredibly stupid/brave.

 

No, victory in war depends on the general's ability to motivate troops, make the right estimates, and use the terrain, weather, intelligence and manoeuvre to his advantage. Read Sun Tzu.

For example, in the battle for Arnhem the Germans were outnumbered by the British and did not outsmart them at all (they just attacked head on most of the time). They weren't very lucky either. Yet they won. Explain.

 

Because they weer airborne troops (lightly armed) against regular troops with armoured support. Oh, and they got no re-supply.

Logistics are important too.

 

Correct, I failed to mention that but Sun Tzu also stresses the importance of supply.

 

oops. i forgot to mention surprise and supply. thanks for reminding me! :smok: :smok: :smok:

 

Dosnt russia take up 11 time zones as well? I think if moskow was taken the Reds might i say might of surrenderd

 

Moscow doesn't hold as much symbolic value for Communists as Leningrad (the first city where the Soviets came to power). I doubt the loss of a mere and minor symbol would cause the government and country to collapse unless, as was said, Stalin was also captured.

 

So does Martin van Crefeld in his book 'Supplying War - Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton'



Makes an intresting read, especially the part about the Soviet Union, for instance the first survey concluded there was nowhere near enough logistics for the task, this result wasn't liked so the German planners came up with a new survey that said it would be possible.

:smok: