Originally Posted by MontyB

I go with a yes and no approach on this one.

Producing complicated stuff was a problem for Germany but not because they produced it but rather they could not properly test it before putting it into frontline service.

Let's face it had they known the limitations through testing of the Elephant it probably would never have made it off the drawing board.
Personally I believe Germany should have focused on the Panther in small numbers and spent the majority of its resources retooling the Pz IV into the Jagdpanzer IV, this would have given them a cheap, powerful armoured vehicle with good crew survivability characteristics that could have been mass produced while still producing a high-quality MBT capable of footing it with anything on the battlefield.

One thing I think people tend to forget is that despite Guderians wanting to focus on the PzIV it was outdated and would have been a death trap up against the tanks of 1945.

I also think they really needed to put some focus on the Luftwaffe fighter wing as early as 1939, it more or less just stopped development between 1938 and 1942, but until they could wrestle back some level of air parity over Europe the war was as good as lost.

As for the surface Navy, despite its poor combat performance with the exception of my favourite ship the Prinz Eugen it was not the waste of resources people seem to believe it was, the number allied resources tied up in making sure the Tirpitz didn't break out was phenomenal, far greatter than the amount of resources that went into making the Tirpitz.

As for more submarines, not a lot of point in more tanks, subs or aircraft unless you have trained crews to operate them, and by 1944 the Germans didn't, therefore, they needed quality rather than quantity, they needed to keep inexperienced crews alive long enough to become quality.

I am sorry for the late reply. I have read criticism about focusing a lot of resources on the surface fleet when these can have been used to produce subs and having more sailors for the sub fleet instead of challenge the RN like they did

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I am sorry for the late reply. I have read criticism about focusing a lot of resources on the surface fleet when these can have been used to produce subs and having more sailors for the sub fleet instead of challenge the RN like they did

It should be noted that Hitler came to the same conclusion, but by then the U Boats had been defeated.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I am sorry for the late reply. I have read criticism about focusing a lot of resources on the surface fleet when these can have been used to produce subs and having more sailors for the sub fleet instead of challenge the RN like they did

Even with all the submarines in the world the Kriegsmarine would have needed about 300 years of training and tradition to have even come close to matching the Royal Navy.

In two world wars the only time the German Navy wasnt fleeing the Royal Navy was Jutland where once cornered they gave a good account of themselves but then decided never to put to sea again, hell even the Bismarck was trying to run from the Hood.

The German U-Boat fleet gave a good acount of itself and fought bravely to a rather bitter end but it had no chance from day one nor was it ever really a genuine threat to allied shipping, more submarines would only have killed more German seamen.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Even with all the submarines in the world the Kriegsmarine would have needed about 300 years of training and tradition to have even come close to matching the Royal Navy.

In two world wars the only time the German Navy wasnt fleeing the Royal Navy was Jutland where once cornered they gave a good account of themselves but then decided never to put to sea again, hell even the Bismarck was trying to run from the Hood.

The German U-Boat fleet gave a good acount of itself and fought bravely to a rather bitter end but it had no chance from day one nor was it ever really a genuine threat to allied shipping, more submarines would only have killed more German seamen.

Didn't do badly at Coronel either. Some studies say even when it looked like the U Boats were winning early in the War the shipyards reportedly were keeping up. The Germans, like the US subs, had big problems with their detonators and a lot of ships escaped. Reportedly one U Boat had an easy shot at two or three R.N. Battleships, all torpedoes failed. After the war comparisons revealed that the 1st Sea Lord Winston Churchill was on one of them and considering the way torpedoed R. N. BBs had of blowing up.....

To get back to the original question, could Germany defeat Russia?

In a word ""NO,"" Stalin had a total disregard for human life, he would have sent troops piecemeal into the front line until the last Soviet soldier was killed.

However, if Germany had developed the Atom Bomb................

Originally Posted by George

Didn't do badly at Coronel either. Some studies say even when it looked like the U Boats were winning early in the War the shipyards reportedly were keeping up. The Germans, like the US subs, had big problems with their detonators and a lot of ships escaped. Reportedly one U Boat had an easy shot at two or three R.N. Battleships, all torpedoes failed. After the war comparisons revealed that the 1st Sea Lord Winston Churchill was on one of them and considering the way torpedoed R. N. BBs had of blowing up.....

The US submarine expert Clay Blair said that the U Boats had no chance at all to win .

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

To get back to the original question, could Germany defeat Russia?

In a word ""NO,"" Stalin had a total disregard for human life, he would have sent troops piecemeal into the front line until the last Soviet soldier was killed.

However, if Germany had developed the Atom Bomb................

Not sure it is that simple, just for arguments sake lets assume Moscow fell and the Germans advanced to the Volga, what is left East of that worth defending, they could have armed themselves and used Siberian oil to keep a war machine running but the bulk of the population would have been in German hands, all of its major urban areas would have been as well and most importantly its food supplying regions would have been.

I don't think the Germans needed to go as far as the Urals, the Russian position would have been untennable once they reached the Volga river and they were very close to achieving that.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Not sure it is that simple, just for arguments sake lets assume Moscow fell and the Germans advanced to the Volga, what is left East of that worth defending, they could have armed themselves and used Siberian oil to keep a war machine running but the bulk of the population would have been in German hands, all of its major urban areas would have been as well and most importantly its food supplying regions would have been.

I don't think the Germans needed to go as far as the Urals, the Russian position would have been untennable once they reached the Volga river and they were very close to achieving that.

The Germans reached the Wolga in 1942

The Germans could only go to the Urals if the SU was defeated west(far west ) of the Urals and they could only defeat the SU if they reached the Urals .

It was mission impossible .

While it is possible that MOST (not all ) food supplying regions would be lost , one must not forget that less people had to be fed .

It is possible that the Soviet position would be untenable if the Germans had reached the Wolga EVERYWHERE, but I like to see how the Germans could advance from the Wolga to the Urals .

Originally Posted by lljadw

The Germans reached the Wolga in 1942

The Germans could only go to the Urals if the SU was defeated west(far west ) of the Urals and they could only defeat the SU if they reached the Urals .

It was mission impossible .

While it is possible that MOST (not all ) food supplying regions would be lost , one must not forget that less people had to be fed .

It is possible that the Soviet position would be untenable if the Germans had reached the Wolga EVERYWHERE, but I like to see how the Germans could advance from the Wolga to the Urals .

I more or less agree however I think a line along the Volga - Dvina River may have been enough, I stongly doubt that after 1942 the Germans could have crossed the Volga and progressed to the Urals but I think had they been able to form a line along the Volga/Dvina the Russians position would have been basically pointless.

Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union, but in only by instigating a general collapse of the Soviet political superstructure. The only way to do this would be to get rid of Stalin. Once he's gone, I think there's a good chance the whole edifice comes crumbling down. The best (perhaps only) way to do this would have been to drive straight to Moscow as quickly as possible, induce general widespread panic and have Stalin and his goons (if alive) running for the Urals.

There were 2 key decisions that may have hampered the Germans:

1. The delay of Barbarossa
2. The Lotzen Decision

The Germans even so, managed to introduce such panic in Moscow on October 16th that Stalin very nearly left the city. He didn't and the moment was lost for Germany. Stalin then went on to give his stirring speech on November 7th that stiffened public moral and resolve to defend Moscow to the last. Had the Germans turned up earlier, I'm not sure the panic could have been stopped.

Of course, a drive to Moscow is fraught with difficulties and a massive gamble. I'm not even sure that logistically, it would have been possible, But it was the only chance for outright victory, The problem with German operational tactics in Russia is that the country is vast, unlike Poland and France, Unless the Germans moved quickly enough to cause regime collapse, they'd run out of time as the Soviets had massive tracts of land to retreat into. This was not the case in the West.

Time was of the essence! Which is why the 2 decisions I mention above were so key.