Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MontyB I really cannot see how a two campaign strategy would have worked given the comparative strengths and weaknesses of both armies at what would have been the end of the first campaign and the start of the second one.
My impression is that the Germans achieved as much as they did by not allowing the Russians a respite and time to regroup and rearm as soon as they were given that chance the tide of the war in the east changed which had to be expected when fighting a nation with such large quantities of resources. |
Well, look at what happened historically Monty. Because they chose to attack south instead of another assault on Moscow, the Wehrmacht caught the Soviets off guard and Case Blau was initially as successful as the opening weeks of Barbarossa had been. In my 'what if' scenario, the Germans would again do something like this but without the losses suffered in the Soviet winter counteroffensive of 1941.
My reason for a 2 season campaign is that it is a gamble to a) be able to capture Moscow in one season and b) there is no guarantee that taking Moscow would signal the capitulation of the Soviet regime. Remember what happened to Napoleon. German military doctrine since the Scharnhorst reforms in the early 19th century was to destroy the enemy army in the field rather than capture strongholds - a 2 season campaign would mirror this doctrine.