Could Germany have defeated Russia? - Page 5




 
--
 
September 11th, 2017  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
The best way for the Germans to have been successful should have been not to commence any military activities at all. They could have stayed home and do other things instead.
September 11th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
But that was never going to happen once Hitler was elected, in fact, the main reason he gathered the support base he did was through his "Make Germany Great Again" campaign which was geared almost exclusively towards war.

The failure of WW1 to secure a conclusive result guaranteed a WW2, it was really a case of when not if.
September 11th, 2017  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
But that was never going to happen once Hitler was elected, in fact, the main reason he gathered the support base he did was through his "Make Germany Great Again" campaign which was geared almost exclusively towards war.

The failure of WW1 to secure a conclusive result guaranteed a WW2, it was really a case of when not if.
Yes, It was a bad joke. The Germans had no chance to win the war. Their opponents were too strong. One aspect of the war was the German lack of strategic bombers, they weren't able to touch the Russian war industries at the Urals, while the British and the Americans had some influence on the German war industries.

Another pondering. Should the Germans have focused their resources on economic/logistic targets from the beginning of the war. They couldn't do both. Hitler changed his mind on Moscow when he ordered units from the Army Group Center to turn south.
--
September 11th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
Yes, It was a bad joke. The Germans had no chance to win the war. Their opponents were too strong. One aspect of the war was the German lack of strategic bombers, they weren't able to touch the Russian war industries at the Urals, while the British and the Americans had some influence on the German war industries.

Another pondering. Should the Germans have focused their resources on economic/logistic targets from the beginning of the war. They couldn't do both. Hitler changed his mind on Moscow when he ordered units from the Army Group Center to turn south.
Perhaps had they focused less attention on ideological targets they would have been better off, as far as strategic bombers go I don't think one would have helped significantly the Luftwaffe would have been better off with a good long range escort fighter than a bomber.

Indeed the Lodzen decision is one debated as the turning point of the war yet I still think the decision to turn south and cut off the Russians in the south was the best military decision Hitler ever made especially when there was no guarantee of Moscow falling or Russia surrendering if it did.
September 12th, 2017  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Perhaps had they focused less attention on ideological targets they would have been better off, as far as strategic bombers go I don't think one would have helped significantly the Luftwaffe would have been better off with a good long range escort fighter than a bomber.

Indeed the Lodzen decision is one debated as the turning point of the war yet I still think the decision to turn south and cut off the Russians in the south was the best military decision Hitler ever made especially when there was no guarantee of Moscow falling or Russia surrendering if it did.
Can you elaborate more on why you think the long range fighters had been better than strategic bombers?
September 13th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
Can you elaborate more on why you think the long range fighters had been better than strategic bombers?
Because the German military was not geared towards long wars therefore it had no use for a strategic bomber, however a fighter that could escort its medium bombers to the target and back would have been far more useful.

Had the Luftwaffe fighter arm been able to spend a significant amount of time over England for example it would have been far more dangerous.
September 13th, 2017  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Because the German military was not geared towards long wars therefore it had no use for a strategic bomber, however a fighter that could escort its medium bombers to the target and back would have been far more useful.

Had the Luftwaffe fighter arm been able to spend a significant amount of time over England for example it would have been far more dangerous.
Yes, I agree with that. I was thinking about if the German luftwaffe was able to reach out and touch the Russian factories at the Urals, but if the Germans were able to reach them the Russians had probably moved them further east. It had required a strategic bomber fleet and probably long range fighters as escorts. The British and the Americans suffered heavy losses when their bombers were without fighter escorts.
September 14th, 2017  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
Yes, I agree with that. I was thinking about if the German luftwaffe was able to reach out and touch the Russian factories at the Urals, but if the Germans were able to reach them the Russians had probably moved them further east. It had required a strategic bomber fleet and probably long range fighters as escorts. The British and the Americans suffered heavy losses when their bombers were without fighter escorts.

Germany's biggest problem is that they were always going to be a continental army, they had no capacity to project power unless they had a land border.
One of the biggest mistakes they made in my opinion was going to war with Russia, while they were allied the power of the Royal Navy was negated but once war broke out with Russia Germany became hemmed in by the much more powerful Royal Navy.
September 14th, 2017  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Because the German military was not geared towards long wars therefore it had no use for a strategic bomber, however a fighter that could escort its medium bombers to the target and back would have been far more useful.

Had the Luftwaffe fighter arm been able to spend a significant amount of time over England for example it would have been far more dangerous.
The Germans had long-range bombers : from the coast of France these bombers attacked Belfast and Glasgow and returned (= 1200 km) ,from Norway they attacked the east coast of Britain and returned(= 2000 km), what thet did not have in 1941 (neither did Britain) were long-range fighters .
September 14th, 2017  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB

Indeed the Lodzen decision is one debated as the turning point of the war .
There were no turning points in WWII,and at the moment of the Lötzen decision, Germany had already lost the war in the east (in the summer ) .
 


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?