Could Germany have defeated Russia? - Page 2




 
--
 
August 25th, 2017  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I think people over rate the effect of the Russian winter, it is not like Germany in winter is a tropical paradise, Germans are well used to and equipped for cold weather.

Where the war in Russia fell over in my opinion is logistics but it was not a failing of German logistics units as their ability late in the war to ship units around to plug gaps proves their ability but rather a failure of German command to understand just how backward the transport infrastructure in Russia was at the time.
When the roads turn into what resemble a mud pit instead of a road had an impact on the logistics. The railroad was different too, even if the Russians destroyed most of it while retreating. The distances also drained the troops and the logistics too

The winter has a huge effect on those not dressed to resist the cold. Without proper boots and gloves, hands and feet will feel the full impact of the cold. Not having a proper winter head wear will cause a huge release of the body heat. It doesn't matter how used you are to the winter if you don't have the clothes for it.
August 27th, 2017  
lljadw
 
It was cold for the Soviets also.
August 28th, 2017  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
It was cold for the Soviets also.
You'd think they would be well equipped for the cold, but then many were sent into combat unarmed....
--
August 28th, 2017  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
I'm quite impressed by how the Russians were able to relocate their industries to the Urals. To get them up and running and building up the logistics from them.

I also think it is difficult to pin point one significant factor as the most decisive factor that caused the German defeat. There are several factors leading to the final conclusion. There is a causal effect of events that caused the defeat.

The Germans underestimated the distances, the poor infrastructure, the winter, etc etc. I also think they underestimated how the Russians reacted to the invasion. Most other countries might have surrendered after the initial blows. Another factor that might influenced the Russian reaction is how the Germans were treated them.
August 28th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
It was cold for the Soviets also.
Exactly, it wasn't just cold on the German side of the lines, roads and rail links on the Russian side were just as bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
I'm quite impressed by how the Russians were able to relocate their industries to the Urals. To get them up and running and building up the logistics from them.

I also think it is difficult to pin point one significant factor as the most decisive factor that caused the German defeat. There are several factors leading to the final conclusion. There is a causal effect of events that caused the defeat.

The Germans underestimated the distances, the poor infrastructure, the winter, etc etc. I also think they underestimated how the Russians reacted to the invasion. Most other countries might have surrendered after the initial blows. Another factor that might influenced the Russian reaction is how the Germans were treated them.
One other aspect of the German defeat that seems to be continually over looked (maybe for good reason) is the Balkans campaign and having to bail the Italians out in Greece.
The material losses both combat and garrison duty, as well as the 8-10 week delay in being able to initiate Barbarossa, could have been crucial.
August 29th, 2017  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
the 8-10 week delay in being able to initiate Barbarossa, could have been crucial.
that's the usual opinion, with the extra time the damage might not have been recoverable by the Russians.
August 29th, 2017  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Exactly, it wasn't just cold on the German side of the lines, roads and rail links on the Russian side were just as bad.



One other aspect of the German defeat that seems to be continually over looked (maybe for good reason) is the Balkans campaign and having to bail the Italians out in Greece.
The material losses both combat and garrison duty, as well as the 8-10 week delay in being able to initiate Barbarossa, could have been crucial.
Indeed, even the German decision to intervene in Africa forced them to divert resources which can have been useful elsewhere.
September 1st, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
North Africa was a bit of a side show though, it was a campaign that never had to be fought had the Italians been smart enough to do nothing.

The logistic requirements of the African campaign were worse than that of the Russian one.
September 1st, 2017  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
North Africa was a bit of a side show though, it was a campaign that never had to be fought had the Italians been smart enough to do nothing.

The logistic requirements of the African campaign were worse than that of the Russian one.
Because Italy didn't immediately take Malta.....and yes, they should have done a Franco.
September 5th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Because Italy didn't immediately take Malta.....and yes, they should have done a Franco.
I really do think that would have been the best thing Italy could have done for itself and the Axis.
It would have made the invasion of Southern France almost impossible and forced any landings on the Mediterranean coast of Europe to have been in the area of Greece.
 


Similar Topics
Closing Allied bases in Germany, sleep-walking to a nuclear-armed German superpower?
Could Germany have defeated the Allies in WW I had it not attacked Belgium?
China plans to invade US!
Allies and neutrals in WW2
Could Germany have defeated the US?